HomeMy WebLinkAboutSt Marys Wind Final Application09222012Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA 13-006 Application Page 1 of 25 7/3/2011
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Type of Entity: Not-for-profit corporation Fiscal Year End: December 31
Tax ID # 92-0035763 Tax Status: For-profit or X non-profit ( check one)
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Physical Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone
800-478-1818
Fax
800-478-4086
Email
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
Brent Petrie
Title
Manager, Community Development and
Key Accounts
Mailing Address 4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone
907.565.5531
Fax
907.562.4086
Email
BPetrie@avec.org
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
X An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05, or
An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or
A local government, or
A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities);
Yes
1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project
by its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority.
If the applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each
participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box )
Yes
1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems
and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in
the grant agreement.
Yes
1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the
attached grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted
with the application.)
Yes
1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant
funds for the benefit of the general public.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 2 of 25 7/3//2012
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
This is intended to be no more than a 1-2 page overview of your project.
2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 5 word title for your project)
St. Mary’s / Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Project
2.2 Project Location –
Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will
benefit from your project in the subsections below.
This project will be constructed near Pitka’s Point and will service that community and its
neighbor St. Mary’s, five miles away. Both communities are approximately 450 air miles west-
northwest of Anchorage.
2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude, street address, or community name.
Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s location on the map
and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The coordinates will be displayed in the Google
search window above the map in a format as follows: 61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining
this information please contact AEA at 907-771-3031.
This project will be located near Pitka’s Point which lies at approximately 62.032780 North
Latitude and -163.287780 West Longitude. (Sec. 06, T022N, R076W, Seward Meridian.)
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
This project will benefit St. Mary’s (2011 population of 554) and Pitka’s Point (2011 population
of 93), which have intertied electrical systems. Pitka’s Point is located in the Bethel Recording
District. Pitka’s Point is about three miles from the St. Mary’s airport. The City of St. Mary's
encompasses the Yup'ik villages of St. Mary's and Andreafsky. It lies at approximately
62.053060 North Latitude and -163.165830 West Longitude. (Sec. 26, T023N, R076W, Seward
Meridian.)
AVEC anticipates that through future community interties, Pilot Station and Mountain Village
will also benefit from this wind energy project.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
X Wind Biomass or Biofuels
Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy
Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 3 of 25 7/3//2012
Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic
Solar Storage of Renewable
Other (Describe)
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
Reconnaissance Design and Permitting
Feasibility X Construction and Commissioning
Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is seeking $5,538,592 from this Grant Program
to add a wind energy component to the existing diesel power generation system that presently
serves St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. The project will construct one 900 kW EWT turbine at a
location 2.5 miles from St. Mary’s and 1 miles east of Pitka’s Point, and will connect it to the
existing power generation system. The EWT is expected to produce 2,717,000 kWh annually at
80% turbine availability. This project would also involve upgrading the existing power line
between St. Mary’s and the new wind turbine site from 2-phase to 3-phase. The total
estimated project cost is $6,153,991 with AVEC contributing $615,399 as its match.
This project, using previously awarded REF funds, is currently under design. Geotechnical work
has been completed and permit applications have been submitted. The FAA approval has been
obtained. Permits are expected to be in hand by December 2012. Final design will be
completed by the end of 2012.
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel
costs, lower energy costs, etc.)
St. Mary’s, which is connected to Pitka’s Point via an existing power line, uses diesel fuel for
electrical power generation, heating oil for boiler and home heating, thermal heat recovered
from the power plant for heating community facilities, and diesel and gasoline for
transportation needs. The proposed project would add one 900 kW wind turbine to
supplement the existing the electrical power system. The turbine is expected to produce
approximately 26 % of the electricity consumed by the villages. This will result in:
Reduction in diesel fuel used for village power generation in St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point by
about 97,126 gallons/yr. or $439,981 the first year (expected to be in 2014; based on cost of
fuel at $4.53/gallon from AEA).
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 4 of 25 7/3//2012
Reduction in diesel fuel used for heat by about 2,250 gallons/year or $10,196 the first year.
A reduction in operation and maintenance costs.
Stabilized energy costs for both villages and with the future, planned interties to Pilot
Station and to Mountain Village.
A reduction in fossil fuel emissions which results in improved air quality and decreased
contribution to global climate change.
In addition, excess energy from the wind turbines will be used to heat important community
facilities, decreasing the cost to operate those facilities and further reducing the consumption
of heating oil in the communities. It is also a step forward in achieving state and federal
renewable energy goals.
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source
of other contributions to the project.
AVEC is proposing to construct a 900kW EWT wind turbine in Pitka’s Point. The project will cost
$6,153,991. AVEC requests $5,538,592 from the State of Alaska through a Renewable Energy
Fund award. AVEC will provide $615,399 as a match contribution.
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY
Include a summary of grant request and your project’s total costs and benefits below.
Grant Costs
(Summary of funds requested)
2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $5,538,592
2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $615,399
2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $
2.7.4 Other grant applications not yet approved $
2.7.5 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.3) $6,153,991
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
operational project)
2.7.6 Total Project Cost (Summary from Cost Worksheet
including estimates through construction)
$6,153,991
2.7.7 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $630,000 (if serving only the St.
Mary’s system);
$2,556,944 (if serving combined
St. Mary’s and Pilot Station
system) (assuming 20 year
project period and 3% discount
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 5 of 25 7/3//2012
rate)
2.7.8 Other Public Benefit (If you can calculate the benefit in
terms of dollars please provide that number here and
explain how you calculated that number in your
application (Section 5.)
$
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for
successfully completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the
application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a
resume and references for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager
indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects
project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this
section.
AVEC, as the electric utility serving St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point, will provide overall project
management and oversight.
Brent Petrie, Manager, Community Development and Key Accounts, will lead the project
management team consisting of AVEC staff, consultants, and contractors. He has worked for
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative since 1998, where he manages the development of
alternatives to diesel generation for AVEC such as using wind, hydropower, solar and heat
recovery. He also is the program manager for AVEC’s major construction projects.
Mr. Petrie has worked in the energy and resource field for more than thirty ye ars, having
worked for the federal and state governments as consultant, planner, and project manager.
He has been a utility manager or management consultant since 1993. As General Manager of
Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton Electric Cooperative from 1994 to 1998, he reported to a
seven-member, elected board of directors, and served as project manager on its
hydroelectric project development. He is an elected member of the Board of Directors of the
Utility Wind Interest Group representing rural electric coopera tives and serves on the
Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation Advisory Group of the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association. Mr. Petrie has a Master’s Degree in Water Resource Management
and a Bachelor's Degree in Geography. His resume is attached.
Meera Kohler, the President and CEO of AVEC. Meera Kohler has more than 30 years of
experience in the Alaska electric utility industry. She was appointed Manager of
Administration and Finance at Cordova Electric Cooperative in 1983, General Manager of
Naknek Electric Association in 1990, and General Manager of Municipal Light & Power in
Anchorage in 1997.
Since May 2000, Ms. Kohler has been the President and CEO of AVEC and in this position has
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 6 of 25 7/3//2012
the ultimate grant and project responsibilities.
3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones
Please fill out the schedule below. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points in in your
project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please
clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases of your proposed project.
The key tasks and their completion dates are:
Grant Award Announcement: May 2013
Turbine Procurement: July 2013
Construction Activities: July – September 2014
Project Startup: November 2012
The schedule organized by AEA milestones is as follows:
Confirmation that all design and feasibility requirements are
complete. Complete
Completion of bid documents Complete
Contractor/vendor selection and award July 2013
Construction activities 2013-2014
Turbine Procurement July, 2013
Mobilization June, 2014
Site Access Improvements July, 2014
Foundation Installation August, 2014
Turbine Installation August, 2014
Electrical Distribution Improvements September, 2014
Demobilization September, 2014
Integration and testing September, 2014
Decommissioning old systems N/A
Final Acceptance, Commissioning and Start-up November, 2014
Operations Reporting December, 2014
3.3 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, accounting or bookkeeping personnel or firms, equipment,
and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments
with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any
existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or
contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and
suppliers as an attachment to your application.
AVEC will use a project management approach, that includes a team of AVEC staff and external
consultants, that has been successful in the design and construction of wind turbines
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 7 of 25 7/3//2012
throughout rural Alaska:
AVEC staff and their role on this project includes:
Meera Kohler, President and Chief Executive Officer, will act as Project Executive and
will maintain ultimate authority programmatically and financially.
Brent Petrie, Manager of Community Development and Key Accounts, would lead the
project management team consisting of AVEC staff, consultants, and contractors.
Together with his group, Brent would provide coordination of the installation of the
wind turbine project. The group’s resources include a project coordinator, accountant,
project/construction manager (PM/CM), and a community liaison. Mr. Petrie will be the
program manager for this project and will assign project manager resources to
implement the project.
Debbie Bullock, Manager of Administrative Services, would provide support in
accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with
AEA guidelines.
Bill Stamm, Manager of Engineering, leads AVEC’s Engineering Department which is
responsible for the in-house design of power plants, distribution lines, controls, and
other AVEC facilities. Mr. Stamm has worked at AVEC since 1994. Mr. Stamm was an
AVEC line superintendent before he was appointed to Manager of Engineering in 2012.
Mr. Stamm’s unit will provide engineering design and supervision.
Mark Bryan, the Manager of Operations, is a Certified Journeyman Electrician and
supervises the AVEC’s line operations, generation operations and all field construction
programs. He has worked at AVEC since 1980, was appointed Manager of Construction
in May 1998 and was promoted to Manager of Operations in June 2003. Mr. Bryan’s
unit will oversee operation of this project as part of the AVEC utility system.
Anna Sattler, Community Liaison, will communicate directly with St. Mary’s and Pitka’s
Point residents to ensure that the community is inf ormed.
Material and equipment procurement packages will be formulated by the construction
manager in collaboration with AVEC’s purchasing manager. Purchase orders will be formulated
with delivery dates consistent with dates required for barge or air tran sport consolidation.
Multiple materials and/or equipment will be detailed for consolidated shipments to rural
staging points, where secondary transport to the village destination is provided. The
construction manager will track the shipments and arrange handling services to and around the
destination project sites.
The construction manager will be responsible for the construction activities for all project
components of the facility upgrade. Local labor forces will be utilized to the maximum extent
possible to construct the projects. Local job training will be provided as a concurrent operation
under the management and direction of the construction manager. All construction costs,
direct and indirect will be reimbursed on a cost-only basis to the construction manager, or paid
directly by AVEC.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 8 of 25 7/3//2012
For this project, AVEC is responsible for managing the commissioning process in concert with
the construction manager, designers and vendors. That entails testing and training of
operational personnel, as well as completing all contract closeout documents.
Selection Process for Contractors: The construction contractor selection will be made from a
pre-qualified list of contractors with a successful track record with AVEC. Pre-qualified
contractors have been selected based upon technical competencies, past performance, written
proposal, quality, cost, and general consensus from an internal AVEC steering committee. The
selection of the constructor will occur in strict conformity with AVEC’s procurement policies and
conformance with OMB circulars.
3.4 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
Please provide an alternative contact person and their contact information.
AVEC has systems in place to accomplish reporting requirements successfully. In 2011, AVEC
successfully met reporting requirements for 16 state and 19 federal grants. An independent
financial audit and an independent auditor’s management letter completed for AVEC for 2011
did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that were
considered to be material weaknesses. In addition, the letter stated that AVEC complied with
specific loan and security instrument provisions.
The project will be managed out of AVEC’s Community Development Department. For financial
reporting, the Community Development Department’s accountant, supported by the
Administrative Services Department, will prepare financial reports. The accountant will be
responsible for ensuring that vendor invoices and internal labor charges are documented in
accordance with AEA guidelines and are included with financial reports. AVEC has up-to-date
systems in place for accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in
accordance with AEA guidelines.
AVEC will require that monthly written progress reports be provided with each invoice
submitted from contractor(s). The progress reports will include a summary of tasks completed,
issues or problems experienced, upcoming tasks, and contractor’s needs from AVEC. Project
progress reports will be collected, combined, and supplemented as necessary, and forwarded
as one report to the AEA project manager each quarter.
Quarterly face-to-face meetings will occur between AVEC and AEA to discuss the status of all
projects funded through the AEA Renewable Energy Grants program. Individual project
meetings will be held, as required or requested by AEA.
Meera Kohler, AVEC’s President and CEO, may be contacted as an alternative manager.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 9 of 25 7/3//2012
3.5 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
The project site, though very robust as a Class 6 wind resource, is prone to rime icing conditions
in winter. Rime icing is more problematic for wind turbine operations than freezing rain (clear
ice) given its tenacity and longevity in certain climatic conditions. Anti-icing and/or de-icing
features would be examined as necessary to sustain wind turbine availability during the winter
months.
AVEC recognizes and makes plans to avoid major consequences for falling behind schedule on
this project. Since -- for the most part-- installation cannot occur in the winter, missing upfront
tasks like ordering parts and assigning labor could result in missing the summer window . The
project could be delayed an entire year if the tasks are not completed on schedule.
Weather could delay shipping materials into the community; weather can impact the
construction schedule. However, an experienced Alaskan contractor, expecting bad weather,
will be selected and will be reasonably prepared for weather-related problems.
AVEC is responsible to its member communities and a board of directors , provides a cash match
towards the project, and is liable for project cost overruns, therefore staying on schedule and
within budget is essential. This project will result in decreasing electricity costs, and AVEC’s
member communities are very interested in this project because energy costs can be a large
portion of their budgets. AVEC member communities expect status updates on village projects
including when and what work will occur, who will be involved, and when it will be completed.
If work does not occur according to the schedule, AVEC’s CEO and Board of Directors are usually
alerted by member communities, and there are repercussions.
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to
undertake with grant funds.
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for
an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases
are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available for the market to be served by your project. For pre-construction applications, describe
the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please
provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as
attachments to this application.
The wind resource measured at the St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point met tower site is outstanding with
measured wind power class 6 by measurement of wind power density and wind speed.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 10 of 25 7/3//2012
Extensive wind resource analysis has been conducted in the St. Mary’s region, with met towers
at a lower elevation site closer to the village of St. Mary’s and near Mountain Village, in addition
to the Pitka’s Point met tower. Documented in St.Mary’s Area Wind Power Report by V3
Energy, LLC, dated July 20, 2010, the wind resource measured at the nearby St. Mary’s met
tower site is less robust than that measured at Pitka’s Point and appears to experience similar
icing problems. Considering the inland location of St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point, the wind resource
measure at the Pitka’s Point met tower site is highly unusual, and very favorable, with its
combination of a high annual average wind speed, relatively low elevation, likely good
geotechnical conditions, and proximity to existing roads and infrastructure.
The Pitka’s Point wind resource is comprehensively described in Pitka’s Point, Alaska Wind
Resource Report by V3 Energy, LLC, dated April 25, 2012 (Tab F).
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about
the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
The existing diesel power plant in St. Mary’s consists of three generators: a 499 kW Cummins
QSX15G9, a 611 kW Caterpillar 3508, and a 908 kW Caterpillar 3512. These generators were
installed in 2006, 1987 and 1995, respectively. Aggregate generator efficiency in St. Mary’s in
2011 was 13.83 kWh/gal.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point use diesel fuel for electrical power generation, heating oil for boiler
(thermal) and home heating, thermal heat recovery from the diesel en gines at the power plant,
and diesel and gasoline fuel for transportation needs. The proposed project would add one EWT
900 kW direct drive turbine to the electrical power system. The anticipated effects are less
usage of diesel fuel for electrical power generation, and less usage of heating fuel for boiler
operations due to injection of excess wind power to the thermal heat recovery loop in St.
Mary’s. Between January and December 2011, 232,843 gallons of diesel fuel were consumed to
generate 3,220,283 kWh (total) for the communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s point.
Installation of a wind turbine for the communities would decrease the amount of diesel fuel
used for power generation and heating. Diesel generator use would be curtailed thereby
decreasing generator operations and maintenance costs, and enabling generators to last longer
and need fewer overhauls.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 11 of 25 7/3//2012
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
St. Mary's is located on the north bank of the Andreafsky River, 5 miles from its confluence with
the Yukon River. It lies 450 air miles west-northwest of Anchorage. The area encompasses 44.0
square miles of land and 6.3 square miles of water. The climate is continental with a significant
maritime influence. Temperatures range between -44 and 83 °F. Annual precipitation averages
16 inches, with 60 inches of snowfall.
Pitka’s Point is located near the junction of the Yukon and Andreafsky Rivers, 5 miles nort hwest
of St. Mary's on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. The Yukon River is ice-free from June through
October. Pitka’s Point lies 3 miles by road from the St. Mary's airport. The climate is both
maritime and continental. Temperatures range from -44 to 83 °F. Annual precipitation averages
16 inches, with 60 inches of snowfall.
St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are connected by an intertie with the power plant in St. Mary’s. The
electricity produced at the St. Mary’s power plant in 2011 was 3,220,283 kWh. The load is
highest during the winter months with the bulk of electricity consumed by residences and t he
school. The addition of wind turbines to the electric generation system would reduce the
amount of diesel fuel used for power generation, and energy costs would be stabilized in St.
Mary’s and Pitka’s Point.
Like all of Alaska, St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are subject to long periods of darkness in the
winter. Reliable and affordable electric service is essential for the operation of home lighting,
streetlights, and security lighting. Residents rely on subsistence resources including salmon,
moose, bear, and waterfowl. Subsistence food is gathered and harvested and stored in
refrigerators and freezers. Refrigeration is essential for the extended storage of perishable
foodstuffs, and reliable electric service is essential for proper freeze storage of food. The
construction of the proposed project would augment and improve the existing power
generation system by incorporating a locally available renewable resource.
Additional socio-economic impacts are discussed in Section 5: Project Benefits.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 12 of 25 7/3//2012
4.3 Proposed System
Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address
potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
Optimum installed capacity
Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated annual generation
Anticipated barriers
Basic integration concept
Delivery methods
Renewable Energy Technology. The project would construct a 900 kW 52-900 EWT near Pitka’s
Point. The project site is Pitka’s Point Native Corporation land on and near the location of the
Pitka’s Point met tower, with boundaries of the Pitka’s Point/St. Mary’s Airport road to the
north, a rock quarry to the east, the bluff to the south, and a Native Allotment to the west. More
specifically, AVEC has obtained site control on Lot 6 within these general boundaries for turbine
siting. Site control of Lot 6 is adequate to place one EWT 52-900 turbine. (See the Concept
Design Report for this project under Tab F.)
Optimum installed capacity/Anticipated annual generation. The EWT turbine, with 80% wind
turbine availability (6.75 m/s mean wind speed) would produce 2,483,000 kWh/year when
serving St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point. The capacity factor would be 34.5%. Generation could be
increased once the system is connected to Pilot Station and/or to Mountain Village.
Anticipated barriers. No barriers to successful installation and integration of wind turbines in
St.Mary’s/Pitka’s Point are expected. The project will be constructed using knowledge of
previous successful wind-diesel projects.
Basic integration concept. AVEC is currently developing the integration concept for this project.
Final design will be completed by the end of 2012. The existing St. Mary’s power plant already
contains some of the equipment necessary (upgraded engine controls and switchgear) to accept
wind-generated electric power.
Delivery methods. The project will connect to the existing intertie between St. Mary’s and
Pitka’s Point. This project proposes to upgrade the line to 3 -phase.
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the
project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 13 of 25 7/3//2012
The proposed turbine site in Pitka’s Point and St. Mary’s is shown in the figures as part of the
Concept Design Report (Tab F). The preferred wind site is the Pitka’s Point location due to its
superior wind resource. At the present time, AVEC has a lease for the turbine site. Meetings for
site control for interties to other villages are scheduled for late September 2012, and success in
obtaining all necessary site control is expected and will be reported to AEA in October 2012.
4.3.3 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
List of applicable permits
Anticipated permitting timeline
Identify and discussion of potential barriers
A FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Traffic has been obtained (Tab F).
A Section 404 Permit (Wetlands Permit) application has been submitted to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The permit is expected by the end of 2012. Agencies have been sent scoping
letters regarding the projects and AVEC is waiting for responses. There are no barriers identified
for the successful permitting of this project.
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will
be addressed:
Threatened or Endangered species
Habitat issues
Wetlands and other protected areas
Archaeological and historical resources
Land development constraints
Telecommunications interference
Aviation considerations
Visual, aesthetics impacts
Identify and discuss other potential barriers
Threatened or Endangered species. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage
Field Office, Section 7 Consultation Guide, there are no endangered or listed species, or
federally designated critical habitat listed near St. Mary’s or Pitka’s Point.
Habitat issues. During permitting, the project team would work with agencies to ensure that
the project would not impact any State refuges, sanctuaries or critical habitat areas, federal
refuges or wilderness areas, or national parks.
Wetlands and other protected areas. A Section 404 Permit (Wetlands Permit) application has
been submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The permit is expected by the end of 2012.
(Tab F).
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 14 of 25 7/3//2012
Archaeological and historical resources. There are no known cultural resources within the area
that could be affected by St. Mary's/Pitka’s Point Wind Turbine Project. The specific project
locale has not been archaeologically surveyed, but is located in an area of low probability for
undiscovered historic and archaeological properties. With the understanding that this
undertaking would still need to be reviewed by archaeologists at the State Office of History and
Archaeology, and the provision that any previously undiscovered cultural remains should be
immediately reported to the State Historic Preservation Officer, Cultural Resource Consultants
LLC (CRC) does not recommend a field survey for the project. See Memorandum from CRC
under Tab F.
Land development constraints. AVEC has site control for the wind turbine.
Aviation considerations. A FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Traffic has been obtained for
the project.
Visual, aesthetics impacts. The turbine would be placed between St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point.
Because it is likely that the turbine would be constructed between the communities, it is likely
that there would be little concern for visual or aesthetic impacts. Communities often note that
the turbines offer a helpful visual guide point when traveling outside the village. AVEC would
conduct community meetings to discuss visual impacts and how they co uld be minimized, in the
unlikely event that visual issues arise.
Please see attached Final St. Mary’s Project Description R-4 under Tab F for additional
environmental information.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and
any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the
source of their cost data. For example: Applicants records or analysis, industry standards,
consultant or manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of
the project. Cost information should include the following:
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
Requested grant funding
Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind
Identification of other funding sources
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
AVEC is proposing to construct a 900kW EWT wind turbine in Pitka’s Point. The project will cost
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 15 of 25 7/3//2012
$6,153,991. AVEC requests $5,538,592 from the State of Alaska through a Renewable Energy
Fund award. AVEC will provide $615,399 cash as a match contribution.
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by
the applicant.
(Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet
ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting impacts of projects on the
communities they serve.)
O&M costs for the installed turbine in St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point are $48,250 annually. This
number is based on $0.018/kWh, which is the O&M cost for urban wind turbines. This is a
judgment call based on AVEC’s experience with many turbines. The maintenance costs would
be funded through ongoing energy sales to AVEC’s customers (member owners) in the villages.
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
AVEC, the existing electric utility serving St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point, is a member owned
cooperative electric utility and typically owns and maintains the generation, fuel sto rage, and
distribution facilities in the villages it serves.
Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s). Energy produced from the completed
wind project would be integrated in to AVEC’s power supply system and sold to AVEC’s existing
customer base in the communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point.
Potential power purchase/sales price/Proposed rate of return from grant -funded project. The
sales price for the wind-generated electricity would be determined by the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska as is done in all AVEC villages. The delivered cost of energy would be
reduced as much as possible for customers within St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point under current
regulations. Currently, of AVEC’s 55 villages, those with wind power systems experience the
lowest electricity cost within the utility. Similar energy cost reductions are expected upon
project completion, as proposed in this application.
The project has an expected payback of:
13.6 years (simple), 17.9 years (discounted) for St. Mary’s only;
11.3 years (simple), 13.9 years (discounted) for St. Mary’s + Pilot Station
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 16 of 25 7/3//2012
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
Please fill out the form provided below
Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. Class 6 (outstanding); mean annual speed 7.63 m/s
at 38 m; Weibull k=1.94; Weibull c=8.64 m/s; mean
annual power density=559 W/m^2; classifies as IEC
Class II-c site
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 3
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 499 kW; 611 kW, 908 kW
iii. Generator/boilers/other type generators
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 5 years, 24 years, and 16 years
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.83 (AVEC 2011)
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $64,406 (based on $0.02/kWh) labor and non-labor
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh] 3,220,283 kWh (2011 total); 3,083,325 (2011 sold)
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 232,843 gallons (2011)
Other
iii. Peak Load 616 kWh (December 2011)
iv. Average Load 368 kWh (2011)
v. Minimum Load
vi. Efficiency 13.83 (AVEC 2011)
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 17 of 25 7/3//2012
vii. Future trends
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a) Proposed renewable capacity
(Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kW or MMBtu/hr]
One 900 kW EWT 52-900 wind turbine
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 2,483,000 kWh/yr (80% availability)
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
iv. Other
Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $6,153,991
b) Development cost
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $48,250 (based on $0.018/kWh)
d) Annual fuel cost Cost/benefit analysis based on projected fuel price
average of $5.03/gal in St. Mary’s during project life
Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 97,126 gallons/year (80% turbine availability)
ii. Heat 2,250 gallons/year (80% turbine availability)
iii. Transportation
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 18 of 25 7/3//2012
b) Current price of displaced fuel $3.67 (2011 St. Mary’s, AVEC data)
c) Other economic benefits
d) Alaska public benefits
Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale
Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio B/C = 1.03 if serving only St. Mary’s system;
B/C = 1.06 if serving St. Mary’s plus Pilot Station. Please see
analysis in Tab F.
Payback (years) 13.6 years (simple), 17.9 years (discounted) for St. Mary’s only;
11.3 years (simple), 13.9 years (discounted) for St. Mary’s +
Pilot Station
4.4.5 Proposed Biomass System Information
Please address the following items, if know. (For Biomass Projects Only)
n/a
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings,
and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project.
The benefits information should include the following:
Potential annual fuel displacement (gallons and dollars) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project
Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price,
RCA tariff, or cost based rate)
Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)
Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable
energy subsidies or programs that might be available)
Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
Potential annual fuel displacement: The possible displacement of diesel fuel used for village
power generation in St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point could be about 99,377 gallon/year total, and
1,987,540 gallons over the project’s 20-year lifetime (assuming 80% turbine availability). About
97,126 gallons/year would be displaced for village power generation, and about 2,250
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 19 of 25 7/3//2012
gallons/year would be displaced from heat generation. This project could save $450,177 during
its first full year of operation (based on an estimated 2014 cost of $4.53/gallon from AEA), or
$439,981 from power generation and $10,192 from heat generation.
AVEC is also submitting Round 6 applications for the construction of an intertie to Pilot Station,
and design and permitting of an intertie to Mountain Village in order to take full advantage of
the EWT’s full generation potential. When the interties are completed, a wind power project in
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point would benefit Mountain Village and Pilot Station, as well as St. Mary’s
and Pitka’s Point.
Anticipated annual revenue/Potential additional annual incentives/Potential additional
annual revenue streams. Tax credits are not expected to be beneficial to the project due to
AVEC’s status as a non-profit entity. Nonetheless, in addition to saving the direct cost of fuel,
AVEC could sell green tags from the project.
Non-economic public benefits. In St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point, the average annual price for
residential electricity for the calendar year 2011 was $0.5902 per kilowatt hour (kWh), which
far exceeds the national benchmark of $0.264/kWh. The average annual residential cost of
electricity per household in 2011 was $4,197.18. According to the 2010 Census, 15.6% of St.
Mary’s residents and 32.6% of Pitka’s Point residents had incomes below the poverty level. The
median household income in St. Mary’s was $38,000, and in Pitka’s Point it was $38,125. The
poorest residents in rural Alaska, including St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point, use almost half of their
household incomes for home energy costs, according to a study by the Institute of Social and
Economic Research. Furthermore, these households use less than half as much energy as those
whose power comes from natural gas or hydro-electric sources. This project is part of the
solution.
The anticipated benefits from the installation of the wind turbine would be reducing the
negative impact of the cost of energy by provid ing a renewable energy alternative. This project
could help stabilize energy costs and provide long-term socio-economic benefits to village
households. Locally produced, affordable energy would empower community residents and
could help avert rural-to-urban migration.
Stabilized energy costs would allow community entities, including the cities and Tribes to plan
and budget for important economic, land use, recreation, community service, and environmental
goals listed in the St. Mary’s Community Economic Development Strategy (Alaska Department of
Community and Economic Development, September 2000).
This project will increase efficiencies as well as stabilize the costs of the energy system in St.
Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. Both are isolated villages, accessible only by airplane, barge,
snowmachine or small boat, and so rely mainly on air transportation, especially for delivery of
medical goods and the transport of sick or injured individuals, or mothers nearing childbirth.
Reliable electric service is essential to maintaining vital navigation aids for the safe operation of
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 20 of 25 7/3//2012
aircraft, runway lights, automated weather observation stations, VASI lights, DMEs and VORs
(aircraft navigation systems) are all powered by electricity.
Emergency medical service is provided in the health clinic by a health aide. Medical problems
and emergencies must be relayed by telephone or by some other communication means for
outside assistance. Tele-medicine is rapidly growing in rural Alaska as a means of regular and
emergency care. Reliable telephone service and tele-medicine require reliable and affordable
electric service.
In both communities, water is obtained from wells and is treated. Community facilities--such as
the school and homes--are connected to a piped water and sewer system. Reliable and
affordable electric service is required for the continuous operation of the water and
wastewater systems and to prevent freezing of the systems, which would cause extensive
damage and interruptions in service.
Like all of Alaska, St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are subject to long periods of winter darkness.
Reliable and affordable electric service is essential for the operation of home lighting,
streetlights, and security lighting. Outside lighting ensures safety, especially of childr en, in the
many dark hours during the winter months of the year.
Area residents’ health and safety would be enhanced from the environmental benefits resulting
from a reduction of hydrocarbon use, including:
Reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination during transport, storage, or use (thus
protecting vital water and subsistence food sources);
Improved air quality; and
Decreased contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use .
The wind turbine would provide a visual landmark for river, air, and overland travelers, which
would help navigation in the area. Wind turbine orientation and rotor speed would provide
visual wind information to residents.
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable.
Include at a minimum:
Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project
Identification of operational issues that could arise.
A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing
systems that may be require to continue operation
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
As a local utility that has been in operation since 1968, AVEC is completely able to oversee
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 21 of 25 7/3//2012
construction of, operate, and maintain this project for the design life. AVEC has capacity and
experience to operate this project. AVEC has been operating wind projects throughout the state-
familiar with planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining wind systems.
Business Plan Structures and Concepts which may be considered: The wind turbines would be
incorporated into AVEC’s power plant operation. Local plant operators provide daily servicing.
AVEC technicians provide periodic preventative or corrective maintenance and are supported by
AVEC headquarters staff, purchasing, and warehousing. The sales of excess electric heat would
be incorporated into agreements with the City of St. Mary’s.
Operating costs: O&M costs for the installed turbine in St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point is $48,250
annually.
How O&M would be financed for the life of the project: The costs of operations and
maintenance would be funded through ongoing energy sales to AVEC’s consumers (member
owners) in the villages.
Operational issues which could arise: Integration of the secondary load controllers for thermal
dump (of excess wind-generated energy) and frequency controls would need to be addressed.
AVEC would use the knowledge gained through the operations of other village wind-diesel
systems, including its own, to address these issues.
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits: AVEC is fully committed to sharing
the savings and benefits information accrued from this project with its mem ber owners, and with
AEA.
SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed
with work once your grant is approved.
Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants
that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to
meet the requirements of previous grants.
Work provided under this grant award will be initiated immediately. Once funding is known to
be secured, AVEC will prepare and sign contracts with selected contractors. Site control has
been obtained. This project, using previously awarded REF funds, is currently under design. FAA
approval has been obtained. Geotechnical work has been completed and permit applications
have been submitted. Permits are expected to be in hand by December 2012. Final design will
be completed by the end of 2012.
SECTION 8– LOCAL SUPORT
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 22 of 25 7/3//2012
Discuss what local support or possible opposition there may be regarding your project. Include
letters of support from the community that would benefit from this project.
The communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point support this project. Letters of support have
been received from Pitka’s Point Traditional Council and Native Corporation, and the City of St.
Mary’s, Nerklikmute (St. Mary’s) Native Corporation, and the Yupiit of Andreafski (tribe). Please
see attached letters of support under Tab B.
SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much you want in grant funds Include any investments to date and funding sources,
how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an
applicant.
AVEC is proposing to construct a 900kW EWT wind turbine in Pitka’s Point. The project will cost
$6,153,991. AVEC requests $5,538,592 from the State of Alaska through a Renewable Energy
Fund award. AVEC will provide $615,399 as a match contribution. A detailed budget follows.
Milestone or Task Anticipated
Completion RE- Fund Grantee
Matching
Source of
Matching TOTALS
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Grant Application
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 23 of 25 7/3//2012
Date Funds:
Grant Funds Funds
Confirmation that all design and
feasibility requirements are
complete.
Complete $ - $ - $ -
Completion of bid documents Complete $ - $ - $ -
Contractor/vendor selection
and award Complete $ - $ - $ -
Construction activities 2013-2014 $ - $ - $ -
Turbine Procurement July, 2013 $1,748,250 $194,250 Cash $1,942,500
Mobilization June, 2014 $643,877 $71,542 Cash $715,419
Site Access Improvements July, 2014 $335,662 $37,296 Cash $372,958
Foundation Installation Aug, 2014 $335,662 $37,296 Cash $372,958
Turbine Installation Aug, 2014 $503,494 $55,943 Cash $559,437
Electrical Distribution
Improvements Sept 2014 $538,650 $59,850 Cash $598,500
Demobilization Sept, 2014 $251,747 $27,972 Cash $279,719
Integration and testing Sept, 2014 $1,181,250 $131,250 Cash $1,312,500
Decommissioning old systems N/A $ - $ - $ -
Final Acceptance,
Commissioning and Start-up Nov, 2014 $ - $ - Cash $ -
Operations Reporting Dec, 2014 $ - $ - Cash $ -
TOTALS $5,538,592 $615,399 $6,153,991
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ - $ - $ -
Travel & Per Diem $ - $ - $ -
Equipment $1,748,250 $194,250 Cash $1,942,500
Materials & Supplies $ 1,137,102 $126,345 Cash $1,263,447
Contractual Services $ - $ - $ -
Construction Services $ 2,653,240 $294,804 Cash $2,948,044
Other $ - $ - $ -
TOTALS $5,538,592 $615,399 $6,153,991
Tab A
Resumes
Tab B
Letters of Support
St. Mary’s Native Corporation
P.O. Box 149 * St. Mary’s, Alaska 99658 * Phone 907-438-2315 * Fax 907-438-2961
September 20, 2012
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Attn: Anna Sattler, Community Liaison
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
RE: St. Mary’s Native Corporation Zone Easements
Dear Ms. Sattler:
The zone easements, as written, would need modification and board approval. Would AVEC be willing
to have a public notice and informational meeting to disseminate information about the project and
zone easements? Most corporations meet on a quarterly basis.
However, we do support AVEC in their efforts to provide alternative energy and a lowered cost for the
benefit of our shareholder’s and our community.
Sincerely,
ST. MARY’S NATIVE CORPORATION
Nancy Andrew, CEO
File
Tab D
Governing Body Resolution
Tab E
Certification
Tab F
Additional Materials
5%#.' 241,'%6#4'#/#2
)4#2*+%
95% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
SHEET INDEX
WIND ENERGY PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2012
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street
ST. MARY'S
RUSSIA
ANCHORAGE
NOME
KOTZEBUE
BARROW
JUNEAU
FAIRBANKS
CANADA
KODIAK
BETHEL
UNALASKA
SAINT MARY'S / PITKAS
POINT, ALASKA
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' 8+%+0+6;/#2
)4#2*+%
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' 5+6'2.#0
)4#2*+%
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' 2#46+#.'.'%64+%#.&+564+$7+6102.#0
)4#2*+%
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis
September 17, 2012
Douglas Vaught, P.E.
dvaught@v3energy.com
V3 Energy, LLC
Eagle River, Alaska
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | i
This report was prepared by V3 Energy, LLC under contract to Alaska Village Electric Cooperative to
assess the technical and economic feasibility of installing wind turbines at the Pitka’s Point wind site
near the villages of Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. This analysis is part of a conceptual design report and
final project design funded in Round IV of the Renewable Energy Fund administered by Alaska Energy
Authority
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Synopsis of Economic Modeling Results ................................................................................................... 1
Village of St. Mary’s/Andreafsky ............................................................................................................... 1
Wind Resource at Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s ......................................................................................... 2
Wind Speed ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Extreme Winds .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Wind Direction .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Temperature and Density ......................................................................................................................... 6
Wind-Diesel System Design and Equipment ................................................................................................. 7
Diesel Power Plant .................................................................................................................................... 8
Wind Turbines ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC ................................................................................................................. 8
EWT52-900 ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Load Demand ................................................................................................................................................ 9
St. Mary’s Electric Load ............................................................................................................................. 9
Combined Saint Mary’s-Pilot Station Electric Load ................................................................................ 10
Thermal Load .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Diesel Generators ................................................................................................................................... 11
WAsP Modeling, Wind Turbine Layout ....................................................................................................... 12
Orographic Modeling .............................................................................................................................. 12
Wind Turbine Project Site ....................................................................................................................... 14
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Turbine Layout ......................................................................................... 14
WAsP Modeling Results for Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Array ........................................................ 14
EWT52-900 Turbine Layout .................................................................................................................... 16
WAsP Modeling Results for EWT 52-900 Turbine ............................................................................... 16
Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 18
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | ii
Wind Turbine Costs ................................................................................................................................. 18
St. Mary’s to Pilot Station Intertie Cost .................................................................................................. 18
Fuel Cost .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Modeling Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 19
Homer Software Modeling Results ......................................................................................................... 22
Configuration 1: St. Mary’s Only; No Intertie to Pilot Station, NP 100 Turbine Option .................... 22
Configuration 2: St. Mary’s Only; No Intertie to Pilot Station, EWT Turbine Option ......................... 23
Configuration 3: St. Mary’s Intertied to Pilot Station, EWT Turbine Option...................................... 24
Appendix A, WAsP Wind Farm Report, Pitka’s Point Site, NP 100 Turbines............................................... 25
Appendix B, WAsP Turbine Site Report, Pitka’s Point Site, EWT Turbine ................................................... 26
Appendix C, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s, 3 NP 100 Turbines .......................................................... 27
Appendix D, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s, 1 EWT-500 Turbine ........................................................ 28
Appendix E, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s + Pilot Station, 1 EWT-500 Turbine ................................. 29
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 1
Introduction
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is the electric utility for the City of Saint Mary’s/Andreafsky as
well as the interconnected village of Pitka’s Point. AVEC was awarded a grant from the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) to complete feasibility and design work for installation of wind turbines, with planned
construction in 2014.
Wind resource studies of the St. Mary’s area began in 2007 with identification of possible wind turbine
sites on Pitka’s Point Corporation land and Saint Mary’s corporation land, located relatively near each
other between the villages of Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. Both sites were equipped with 40 meter
met towers, but the Pitka’s Point site eventually proved to have the superior wind resource and was
chosen as the primary site for conceptual design and feasibility work.
CRW Engineering Group, LLC was contracted by AVEC to develop a conceptual design report and design
package for a wind turbine project in Saint Mary’s. This analysis is a component of that larger effort.
Synopsis of Economic Modeling Results
Three wind turbine options were modeled for energy balance and economic benefit and cost with
Homer software.
• Configuration 1 considers three Northern Power 100 turbines serving only the Saint Mary’s
electrical and thermal load.
• Configuration 2 serves the same load, but substitutes one EWT 52-900 turbine in place of the
Northern Power turbines.
• Configuration 3 maintains use of the EWT turbine, but adds the Pilot Station electrical load via
construction of an intertie.
Basic economic modeling results are presented in the table below.
Project configuration economic modeling results
Configuration
No.
Wind Turbine Type and Electric Loads
Served
Benefit-to-Cost
Ratio
Simple Payback
Period
1 NP 100’s; Saint Mary’s 0.94 n/a
2 EWT 52-900; Saint Mary’s 1.03 13.6 years
3 EWT 52-900; Saint Mary’s + Pilot Station 1.06 10.9 years
Village of St. Mary’s/Andreafsky
St. Mary's is located 450 air miles west-northwest of Anchorage on the north bank of the Andreafsky
River, five miles from its confluence with the Yukon River. The City of St. Mary's encompasses the Yupik
villages of St. Mary's and Andreafsky. St. Mary's is a Yupik Eskimo community that maintains a fishing
and subsistence lifestyle. The sale of alcohol is prohibited in the city. According to Census 2010, 507
people live in St. Mary’s and Andreafsky. There are 209 housing units in the community and 151 are
occupied. Its population is 91.5 percent Alaska Native, 3.8 percent Caucasion, and 4.7 percent multi-
racial.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 2
Water is derived from Alstrom Creek reservoir and is
treated. Most homes in the village have complete plumbing
and are connected to the piped water and sewer system.
Waste heat from the power plant supports the circulating
water system. A 1.7-million-gallon sewage lagoon provides
waste treatment. A washeteria is available nearby at Pitka's
Point. An unpermitted landfill is shared with Pitka's Point.
Electricity is provided by AVEC with interconnection to the
village of Pitka’s Point and the St. Mary’s airport (station
code KSM). There is one school located in the community, attended by 185 students. There is a local
health clinic staffed by a health practitioner and four health aides. Emergency Services have river,
limited highway, and air access.
Wind Resource at Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s
The wind resource measured at the Pitka’s Point met tower site is outstanding with measured wind
power class 6 by measurement of wind power density and wind speed. Extensive wind resource analysis
has been conducted in the Saint Mary’s region, with met towers at a lower elevation site closer to the
village of Saint Mary’s and near Mountain Village, in addition to the Pitka’s Point met tower.
Documented in Saint Mary’s Area Wind Power Report by V3 Energy, LLC, dated July 20, 2010, the wind
resource measured at the nearby Saint Mary’s met tower site is less robust than that measured at
Pitka’s Point and appears to experience similar icing problems. The Mountain Village wind resource is
very good as well with mean wind speed near that measured at Pitka’s Point. Considering the inland
location of Saint Mary’s/Pitka’s Point, the wind resource measure at the Pitka’s Point met tower site is
highly unusual, and very favorable, with its combination of a high annual average wind speed, relatively
low elevation, likely good geotechnical conditions, and proximity to existing roads and infrastructure.
A 40 meter NRG Systems, Inc. tubular-type meteorological (met) tower was installed on Pitka’s Point
Native Corporation land on the bluff immediately above the Yukon River with excellent exposure to
northeasterly winds down the Andreafsky River, northerly winds from the mountains and southerly
winds from the flat, tundra plains leading toward Bethel. The met tower site is near an active rock
quarry and visual inspection of that quarry indicates the likelihood of excellent geotechnical conditions
for wind turbine foundations. Also of advantage for the site is near proximity of the road connecting
Saint Mary’s to Pitka’s Point, the airport and Mountain Village. A two-phase power distribution line
(connecting the St. Mary’s powerplant to Pitka’s Point as one phase and to the airport as the second
phase) routes on the south side of the road. This line could be upgraded to three-phase at minimal cost
to connect wind turbines to three-phase distribution in Saint Mary’s.
The Pitka’s Point wind resource is comprehensively described in Pitka’s Point, Alaska Wind Resource
Report by V3 Energy, LLC, dated April 25, 2012.
Pitka’s Point met tower data synopsis
Data dates October 26, 2007 to February 12, 2009 (16 months)
Wind power class Class 6 (excellent), based on wind power density
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 3
Wind power density mean, 38 m 558 W/m2
Wind speed mean, 38 m 7.62 m/s (17.0 mph)
Max. 10-min wind speed 29.5 m/s
Maximum 2-sec. wind gust 26.3 m/s (81.2 mph), January 2008
Weibull distribution parameters k = 1.93, c = 8.63 m/s
Wind shear power law exponent 0.176 (low)
Roughness class 2.09 (description: few trees)
IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed. classification Class II-c (at 38 meters)
Turbulence intensity, mean (at 38 m) 0.076 (at 15 m/s)
Calm wind frequency (at 38 m) 20% (< 4 m/s) (16 mo. measurement period)
Google Earth image, Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s
Pitka’s Point met tower location
St. Mary’s
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 4
Wind Speed
Anemometer data obtained from the met tower, from the perspectives of both mean wind speed and
mean wind power density, indicate an outstanding wind resource. Note that cold temperatures
contributed to a higher wind power density than standard conditions would yield for the measured
mean wind speeds.
Anemometer data summary
Variable
Speed 38
m
Speed 29
m
Speed 28
m IceFree
Speed 21
m
Measurement height (m) 38 28.8 28.2 21
Mean wind speed (m/s) 7.68 7.29 7.33 6.83
MoMM wind speed (m/s) 7.62 7.24 7.33 6.78
Median wind speed (m/s) 7.20 6.80 7.00 6.40
Max wind speed (m/s) 29.50 29.20 27.50 28.40
Weibull k 1.94 1.89 2.22 1.88
Weibull c (m/s) 8.64 8.20 8.26 7.68
Mean power density (W/m²) 573 502 441 414
MoMM power density (W/m²) 559 490 441 404
Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 5,015 4,396 3,861 3,627
MoMM energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 4,897 4,294 3,861 3,541
Energy pattern factor 1.95 2.00 1.73 2.01
Frequency of calms (%) (< 4 m/s) 20.4 21.9 17.6 24.7
MoMM = mean of monthly means
Time series calculations indicate high mean wind speeds during the winter months with more moderate,
but still relatively high, mean wind speeds during summer months. This correlates well with the Saint
Mary’s/Andreafsky/Pitka’s Point village load profile where winter months see high demand for
electricity and heat and the summer months have lower demand for electricity and heat. The daily wind
profiles indicate relatively even wind speeds throughout the day with slightly higher wind speeds during
night hours.
38 m anemometer data summary
Mean Median
Max 10-
min avg
Max
gust (2
sec)
Std.
Dev.
Weibull
k
Weibull
c
Month (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (-) (m/s)
Jan 10.17 10.70 29.5 35.9 5.34 1.97 11.45
Feb 9.21 9.20 20.1 23.3 4.07 2.41 10.36
Mar 8.62 8.50 21.8 26.3 4.33 2.07 9.71
Apr 7.98 7.80 16.9 20.6 2.83 3.05 8.90
May 7.27 6.90 21.8 27.1 3.67 2.06 8.19
Jun 5.70 5.80 13.2 15.3 2.62 2.28 6.40
Jul 7.98 7.70 21.7 26.3 3.33 2.55 8.99
Aug 5.89 5.70 15.3 17.9 2.95 2.05 6.62
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 5
Sep 6.37 6.70 12.5 16.8 2.44 2.85 7.11
Oct 6.80 6.60 20.1 24.8 3.81 1.80 7.62
Nov 7.32 6.40 24.1 29.8 4.48 1.72 8.23
Dec 8.97 8.90 22.9 27.5 4.69 1.95 10.07
Annual 7.62 7.20 29.5 35.9 4.09 1.94 8.64
Monthly time series, mean wind speeds
Extreme Winds
A modified Gumbel distribution analysis, based on monthly maximum winds vice annual maximum
winds, was used to predict extreme winds at the Pitka’s Point met tower site. Sixteen months of data
though are minimal at best and hence results should be viewed with caution. Nevertheless, with data
available the predicted Vref (maximum ten-minute average wind speed) in a 50 year return period (in
other words, predicted to occur once every 50 years) is 41.6 m/s. This result classifies the site as Class II
by International Electrotechnical Commission 61400-1, 3rd edition (IEC3) criteria. IEC extreme wind
probability classification is one criteria – with turbulence the other – that describes a site with respect to
suitability for particular wind turbine models. Note that the IEC3 Class II extreme wind classification,
which clearly applies to the Pitka’s Point met tower site, indicates relatively energetic winds and
turbines installed at this location should be IEC3 Class II rated.
Site extreme wind probability table, 38 m data
Vref Gust IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed.
Period (years) (m/s) (m/s) Class Vref, m/s
3 29.2 35.5 I 50.0
10 35.4 43.1 II 42.5
20 37.0 45.0 III 37.5
30 39.6 48.2 S designer-
specified 50 41.6 50.6
100 44.2 53.8
average gust factor: 1.22
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 6
Wind Direction
Wind frequency rose data indicates that winds at the Pitka’s Point met tower site are primarily bi-
directional, with northerly and east-northeasterly winds predominating. The mean value rose indicates
that east-northeasterly winds are of higher intensity than northerly winds, but interesting, the
infrequent south-southeasterly winds, when they do occur, are highly energetic and likely indicative of
storm winds.
Wind frequency rose (38 m vane) Wind energy rose (38 m anem.)
Temperature and Density
The Pitka’s Point met tower site experiences cool summers and cold winters with resulting higher than
standard air density. Calculated annual air density during the met tower test period exceeds the 1.204
kg/m3 standard air density for a 177 meter elevation by 5.7 percent. This is advantageous in wind power
operations as wind turbines produce more power at low temperatures (high air density) than at
standard temperature and density.
Temperature and density table
Temperature Air Density
Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max
Month (°F) (°F) (°F) (°C) (°C) (°C) (kg/m³) (kg/m³) (kg/m³)
Jan 4.7 -20.2 39.0 -15.1 -29.0 3.9 1.325 1.204 1.416
Feb 4.1 -24.7 32.4 -15.5 -31.5 0.2 1.343 1.264 1.430
Mar 11.0 -14.3 38.8 -11.7 -25.7 3.8 1.275 1.204 1.397
Apr 19.5 -6.3 44.2 -7.0 -21.3 6.8 1.299 1.235 1.372
May 39.4 13.8 65.5 4.1 -10.1 18.6 1.247 1.185 1.314
Jun 49.2 29.5 70.2 9.5 -1.4 21.2 1.223 1.174 1.272
Jul 50.5 37.9 81.9 10.3 3.3 27.7 1.220 1.149 1.250
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 7
Aug 51.3 33.1 70.9 10.7 0.6 21.6 1.218 1.173 1.263
Sep 45.1 30.0 64.6 7.3 -1.1 18.1 1.233 1.187 1.270
Oct 22.7 5.0 37.2 -5.2 -15.0 2.9 1.290 1.252 1.339
Nov 16.3 -14.6 44.6 -8.7 -25.9 7.0 1.308 1.234 1.398
Dec 13.9 -16.2 45.0 -10.1 -26.8 7.2 1.307 1.204 1.403
Annual 27.4 -24.7 81.9 -2.5 -31.5 27.7 1.273 1.149 1.430
Wind-Diesel System Design and Equipment
Wind-diesel power systems are categorized based on their average penetration levels, or the overall
proportion of wind-generated electricity compared to the total amount of electrical energy generated.
Commonly used categories of wind-diesel penetration levels are low penetration, medium penetration,
and high penetration. The wind penetration level is roughly equivalent to the amount of diesel fuel
displaced by wind power. Note however that the higher the level of wind penetration, the more
complex and expensive a control system and demand-management strategy is required. This is a good
compromise between of displaced fuel usage and relatively minimal system complexity and is AVEC’s
preferred system configuration. Installation of three Northern Power 100 wind turbines or one
EWT52/54-900 wind turbine at the Pitka’s Point would be configured at the medium penetration level.
Categories of wind-diesel penetration levels
Penetration
Penetration Level Operating characteristics and system requirements
Instantaneous Average
Low 0% to 50% Less than
20%
Diesel generator(s) run full time at greater than minimum
loading level. Requires minimal changes to existing diesel
control system. All wind energy generated supplies the
village electric load; wind turbines function as “negative
load” with respect to diesel generator governor response.
Medium 0% to 100+% 20% to
50%
Diesel generator(s) run full time at greater than minimum
loading level. Requires control system capable of
automatic generator start, stop and paralleling. To control
system frequency during periods of high wind power input,
system requires fast acting secondary load controller
matched to a secondary load such as an electric boiler
augmenting a generator heat recovery loop. At high wind
power levels, secondary (thermal) loads are dispatched to
absorb energy not used by the primary (electric) load.
Without secondary loads, wind turbines must be curtailed
to control frequency.
High
(Diesels-off
Capable)
0% to 150+% Greater
than 50%
Diesel generator(s) can be turned off during periods of
high wind power levels. Requires sophisticated new
control system, significant wind turbine capacity, secondary
(thermal) load, energy storage such as batteries or a flywheel,
and possibly additional components such as demand-
managed devices.
HOMER energy modeling software was used to analyze the Saint Mary’s power System. HOMER was
designed to analyze hybrid power systems that contain a mix of conventional and renewable energy
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 8
sources, such as diesel generators, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc. and is widely used to aid
development of Alaska village wind power projects.
Diesel Power Plant
Electric power (comprised of the diesel power plant and the electric power distribution system) in Saint
Mary’s is provided by AVEC. The existing power plant in Saint Mary’s consists of one Cummins diesel
generator model QSX15G9 rated at 499 kW output, and two Caterpillar diesel generators, a model 3508
rated at 611 kW output and a model 3512 rated at 908 kW output.
St. Mary’s power plant diesel generators
Generator Electrical Capacity Diesel Engine Model
1 499 kW Cummins QSX15G9
2 611 kW Caterpillar 3508
3 908 kW Caterpillar 3512
Wind Turbines
This report considers installation of three Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines for 300 kW installed
wind capacity to serve only the Saint Mary’s load, or one EWT 52-900 for 900 kW installed wind capacity
to serve Saint Mary’s initially but then both Saint Mary’s and Pilot Station upon completion of the
intertie, which can be considered a companion project. With capacity considerations, three Northern
Power 100 turbines best match the St. Mary’s load while the EWT52-900 turbine, given its much higher
energy output, works best when serving an intertied St. Mary’s-to-Pilot Station load.
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC
The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC, formerly known as the Northwind 100 (NW100) Arctic, is rated at 100
kW and is equipped with a permanent magnet, synchronous generator, is direct drive (no gearbox), and
is equipped with heaters and has been tested to ensure operation in extreme cold climates. The turbine
has a 21 meter diameter rotor operating at a 37 meter hub height. The turbine is stall-controlled and in
the proposed version will be equipped with an arctic package enabling continuous operation at
temperatures down to -40° C. The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC is the most widely represented village-
scale wind turbine in Alaska with a significant number of installations in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and
on St. Lawrence Island. The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC wind turbine is manufactured in Barre,
Vermont, USA. More information can be found at http://www.northernpower.com/. The turbine
power curve is shown below.
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC power curve
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 9
EWT52-900
The EWT52-900 is an IEC Class II-A wind turbine rated at 900 kW, equipped with a direct drive,
permanent magnet, synchronous generator, a 52 meter diameter rotor, and 40, 50 or 75 meter high
towers. The turbine is pitch-controlled, variable speed, and can be equipped with an arctic package
enabling continuous operation at temperatures down to -40° C. A variant of this turbine is the EWT54-
900 which is identical to the EWT52-900 but equipped with a 54 meter diameter rotor and limited to IEC
Class III sites. The wind resource analysis of the Pitka’s Point met tower indicated sufficiently strong
wind gust potential to classify the site as IEC Class II by extreme wind probability (see earlier discussion
in this report).
Three EWT-900 wind turbines are presently operational in Alaska, one in Delta Junction and two in
Kotzebue. The EWT52-900 wind turbine is manufactured in Amersfoort, The Netherlands, with North
American representation in Bloomington, Minnesota. More information can be found at
http://www.ewtinternational.com/?id=4 . The turbine power curve is shown below.
EWT52-900 power curve
Load Demand
This analysis includes stand-alone electric and thermal load demand in St. Mary’s (which includes
Andreafsky and Pitka’s Point) and the combined electric load demand of St. Mary’s and nearby Pilot
Station once the proposed electrical intertie is complete.
St. Mary’s Electric Load
Saint Mary’s/Andreafsky load data, collected from December 26, 2009 to October 27, 2011, was
received from Mr. Bill Thompson of AVEC. These data are in 15 minute increments and represent total
electric load demand during each time step. The data were processed by adjusting the date/time
stamps nine hours from GMT to Yukon/Alaska time, multiplying each value by four to translate kWh to
kW (similar to processing of the wind turbine data), and creating a January 1 to December 31 hourly list
for export to HOMER software. The resulting load is shown graphically below. Average load is 354 kW
with a 621 kW peak load and an average daily load demand of 8,496 kWh.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 10
St. Mary’s electric load
Combined Saint Mary’s-Pilot Station Electric Load
Pilot Station is not equipped with automated logging equipment to document the electric load. But,
with plant operator logs, AVEC tracks the electric load which is documented in AVEC’s annual generation
report and also in the power cost equalization reports that AVEC submits to Regulatory Commission of
Alaska. It is assumed that the Pilot Station electrical load is similar to that of St. Mary’s load on a daily
and monthly basis. Hence, the measured St. Mary’s load was scaled to a daily load demand of 13,726
kWh to represent a combine St. Mary’s-Pilot Station electrical system when the intertie is complete.
St. Mary’s-Pilot Station combined electric load
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 11
Thermal Load
The thermal load demand in St. Mary’s is well quantified and described in a report entitled St. Mary’s,
Alaska Heat Recovery Study, prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority by Alaska Energy and Engineering,
Inc. and dated August 31, 2011. This report is quite comprehensive and won’t be summarized here.
Thermal load data needed for HOMER modeling was extracted from a heat demand/heat available
graph on page 5 of the report. Monthly thermal heat demand is graphed as a heating fuel equivalent in
gallons per month, which was converted to kW demand with a conversion of 0.0312 gallons heating fuel
per kWh. Although not entirely precise, the monthly heat demand was equalized across the entire day
for each month and then randomized a bit with a five percent day-to-day and five percent time step-to-
time step random variability. Resulting thermal load is show below.
Saint Mary’s thermal load
Diesel Generators
The HOMER model was constructed with all three St. Mary’s generators. For cost modeling purposes,
AEA assumes a generator O&M cost of $0.020/kWh. For HOMER modeling purposes, this was converted
to $2.50/operating hour for each diesel generator. Other diesel generator information pertinent to the
HOMER model is shown in the table below. Note that the Saint Mary’s power plant operates is
equipped with automated switchgear and can operate in automatic mode with generators in parallel.
Diesel generator HOMER modeling information
Diesel generator Cummins
QSX15G9
Caterpillar
3508
Caterpillar
3512
Power output (kW) 499 611 908
Intercept coeff. (L/hr/kW
rated) .0222 0.0233 0.0203
Slope (L/hr/kW output) 0.215 0.238 0.233
Minimum electric
load (%)
0%
(0 kW)
0%
(0 kW)
0%
(0 kW)
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 12
Diesel generator Cummins
QSX15G9
Caterpillar
3508
Caterpillar
3512
Heat recovery ratio (% of
waste heat that can serve the
thermal load)
22 22 22
Intercept coefficient – the no-load fuel consumption of the generator divided by its capacity
Slope – the marginal fuel consumption of the generator
Fuel efficiency curve,
QSX15G9
Fuel efficiency curve, Cat
3508
Fuel efficiency curve, Cat
3508
WAsP Modeling, Wind Turbine Layout
WAsP (Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Program) and is PC-based software for predicting wind
climates, wind resources and power production from wind turbines and wind farms and was used to
model the Pitka’s Point terrain and wind turbine performance.
WAsP software calculates gross and net annual energy production (AEP) for turbines contained within
wind farms, such as an array of two or more turbines in proximity to each other. For s single turbine
array, WAsP calculates gross AEP. With one turbine, net AEP is identical to gross AEP as there is no wake
loss to consider.
Orographic Modeling
WAsP modeling begins with import of a digital elevation map (DEM) of the subject site and surrounding
area and conversion of coordinates to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). UTM is a geographic
coordinate system that uses a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system to identify locations on the
surface of Earth. UTM coordinates reference the meridian of its particular zone (60 longitudinal zones
are further subdivided by 20 latitude bands) for the easting coordinate and distance from the equator
for the northing coordinate. Units are meters. Elevations of the DEMs are converted to meters if
necessary for import into WAsP software.
A met tower reference point is added to the digital elevation map, wind turbine locations identified, and
a wind turbine(s) selected to perform the calculations. WAsP considers the orographic (terrain) effects
on the wind (plus surface roughness and obstacles) and calculates how wind flow increases or decreases
at each node of the DEM grid. The mathematical model has a number of limitations, including the
assumption of overall wind regime of the turbine site is the same as the met tower reference site,
prevailing weather conditions are stable over time, and the surrounding terrain at both sites is
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 13
sufficiently gentle and smooth to ensure laminar, attached wind flow. WAsP software is not capable of
modeling turbulent wind flow resulting from sharp terrain features such as mountain ridges, canyons,
shear bluffs, etc.
Orographic modeling of the wind across the site, with the Pitka’s Point met tower as the reference site,
indicates an outstanding wind resource on the top edge of the bluff, especially downhill from the met
tower toward the Yukon River and the village of Pitka’s Point.
Orographic modeling of Pitka’s Point site area, plan view
Orographic modeling of Pitka’s Point site area, view to west
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 14
Wind Turbine Project Site
The project site is Pitka’s Point Native Corporation land on and near the location of the Pitka’s Point met
tower, with boundaries of the Pitka’s Point/Saint Mary’s Airport road to the north, a rock quarry to the
east, the bluff to the south, and a Native Allotment to the west. More specifically, AVEC has obtained
site control on Lot 6 within these general boundaries for turbine siting. Site control of Lot 6 is adequate
to site one EWT52-900 turbine, but lease rights to additional Pitka’s Point Native Corporation property
on the bluff edge would be necessary for an ideal layout of Northern Power 100 turbines.
It is important to note that winds at the project site, though very robust as a Class 6 wind resource, are
prone to rime icing conditions in winter. Rime icing is more problematic for wind turbine operations
than freezing rain (clear ice) given its tenacity and longevity in certain climatic conditions. Anti-icing
and/or de-icing features may be necessary to sustain availability during the winter months.
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Turbine Layout
The Northern Power turbines are located on the bluff edge, which is on and near Lot 6 on Pitka’s Point
Native Corporation land. Using WAsP software, turbine locations were selected that have high gross
energy production based on predicted site wind speeds, but at the same time result in minimal array
loss, thus yielding a high net energy production.
NP 100 Turbine Layout
Turbine UTM (easting, northing) Latitude, Longitude
NP 100 wtg 1 Zone 3V 591577, 6879392 62.035691° N, 163.24939° W
NP 100 wtg 2 Zone 3V 591646, 6879471 62.036383° N, 163.24803° W
NP 100 wtg 3 Zone 3V 591715, 6879552 62.037093° N, 163.24667° W
WAsP Modeling Results for Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Array
The following table presents the WAsP software analysis of energy production and capacity factor
performance of the Northern Power 100 in a three turbine array at 100% turbine availability (percent of
time that the turbine is on-line and available for energy production). The Northern Power 100 performs
very well in the Pitka’s Point wind regime with excellent annual energy production and minimal array
wake loss.
Note that the standard (atmospheric conditions) power curve was compensated to the measured mean
annual site air density of 1.273 kg/m3. For the stall-controlled Northern Power 100, power output (for
each m/s wind speed step) of the standard power curve was multiplied by the ratio of site air density to
standard air density of 1.225 kg kg/m3 and capped at a maximum 100 kW output.
Northern Power 100 annual energy production 3 turbine array, 100% availability
Parameter Total
(MWh/yr)
Average Each
(MWh/yr)
Minimum Each
(MWh/yr)
Maximum Each
(MWh/yr)
Net AEP 1,025 341.8 337.6 345.1
Gross AEP 1,043 347.8 345.9 350.6
Wake loss 1.71 % - - -
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 15
Northern Power 100 turbines, view to north
Northern Power 100 turbines, view to south
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 16
EWT52-900 Turbine Layout
Although orographic modeling indicates highest wind resource on the bluff edge downhill from the met
tower, toward the Yukon River and the village of Pitka’s Point, land use restrictions dictated placement
of the turbine in the southeast corner of Lot 6. This location, though, should still be considered highly
desirable for wind energy production by any standard.
EWT 52-900 Turbine Layout
Turbine UTM (easting, northing) Latitude, Longitude
EWT 52-900 Zone 3V 591648, 6879454 62.036230° N, 163.24800 W°
WAsP Modeling Results for EWT 52-900 Turbine
The following table presents the WAsP software analysis of energy production for the EWT 52-900 wind
turbine at 100% turbine availability (percent of time that the turbine is on-line and available for energy
production). The EWT turbine is predicted to perform extremely well in the Pitka’s Point wind regime
with excellent capacity factors and annual energy productions.
Note that the standard (atmospheric conditions) power curve was compensated to the measured mean
annual site air density of 1.273 kg/m3. For the pitch-controlled EWT 52-, power output (for each m/s
wind speed step) is multiplied by the ratio of site air density to standard air density of 1.225 kg kg/m3,
raised to the one-third power.
EWT 52-900 annual energy production, variable turbine availability
EWT 52-900
(50 meter hub height)
Turbine Availability
Energy Production
(KWh/yr) Capacity Factor (%)
100% 3,397,000 43.1
95% 3,227,000 40.9
80% 2,717,000 34.5
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 17
EWT turbine, view to southwest (village of Pitka’s Point top center)
EWT turbine, view to east (village of St. Mary’s top right)
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 18
Economic Analysis
Homer software was used to model static energy balance of the Saint Mary’s electrical and thermal
power system at one hour increments of time. For both wind turbines considered, they are modeled as
connected to the electrical distribution system with first priority to serve the electrical load and second
priority to serve the thermal load via a secondary load controller and electric boiler.
Wind Turbine Costs
Capital and installation costs of three Northern Power 100 ARCTIC wind turbines to serve the village of
St. Mary’s are based on AVEC’s cost estimate in their Renewable Energy Fund Round V proposal. Total
proposed project cost, including distribution system extension and AVEC cost share, is $4,443,244,
based on a cost estimate developed in 2011 for a Renewable Energy Fund Round 5 analysis.
An alternative consideration, which would serve only the village of St. Mary’s initially but later would
also serve the village of Pilot Station once the intertie is complete, is installation of one EWT52-900 wind
turbine on a 50 meter tower. Total project cost for the EWT52-900 turbine, including distribution
system extension and power plant upgrades, is $6,153,991.
St. Mary’s to Pilot Station Intertie Cost
An economic analysis of the EWT 52-900 wind turbine in a combined Saint Mary’s/Pilot Station electrical
system must include the cost of connection as the intertie does not presently exist. This cost, though, is
more than simply the cost to build the intertie. It includes avoided costs such as a power plant and bulk
fuel upgrade in Pilot Station that will not be built if an intertie to Saint Mary’s is constructed instead.
Interestingly, this also includes the opportunity of wind power. Airspace restrictions around Pilot
Station preclude the option of wind turbines for the village, but with an intertie, the wind power project
plan for St. Mary’s will be available to also serve Pilot Station.
A preliminary cost analysis of non-intertie vs. intertie scenarios is presented in the table below.
Although the intertie itself is projected to cost $5.95 million, the net cost of the intertie, with avoided
capital costs considered, is a very modest $260,000.
Without Intertie With Intertie
St. Mary’s Pilot Station St. Mary’s Pilot Station Notes
Powerplant
capital cost $5.50 M $5.50 M $5.80 M $0.75 M
Bulk fuel capital
cost $4.61 M $2.39 M $5.76 M 0
Wind turbine
capital cost $4.44 M 0 $6.15 M 0
NP100’s for St. M.,
or EWT for both
Intertie capital
cost $5.95 M
Cost Difference
(no turbines)
Total Cost
(wind turbines
not included) $18.00 M $18.26 M $260,000
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 19
Beyond the avoided capital costs, the benefits of an electrical intertie between Saint Mary’s and Pilot
Station include increased efficiency of the diesel generators in Saint Mary’s as they will operate at higher
loading levels and hence more efficient points of their fuel curves, reduced operating and maintenance
expenses with fewer diesel generators on line, lower labor costs, reduced maintenance expenses, and
reduced repair and emergency expenses with operations consolidated in Saint Mary’s. A separate
economic analysis indicates a benefit-to-cost ratio of approximately 1.20 for 20 to 50 year evaluation
periods.
Fuel Cost
A fuel price of $5.02/gallon ($1.33/Liter) was chosen for the initial HOMER analysis by reference to
Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2012-2035, prepared for Alaska Energy Authority by the Institute for Social
and Economic Research (ISER), dated July, 2012. The $5.02/gallon price reflects the average value of all
fuel prices between the 2014 (assumed project start year) fuel price of $4.53/gallon and the 2033 (20
year project end year) fuel price of $5.48/gallon using the medium price projection analysis with social
cost of carbon (SCC) included (see ISER spreadsheet for Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 analysis).
By comparison, the fuel price for Stebbins (without social cost of carbon) reported to Regulatory
Commission of Alaska for the 2011 PCE report is $2.71/gallon ($0.716/Liter).
Fuel cost table
Cost Scenario 2014 (/gal) 2033 (/gal)
Average
(/gallon)
Average
(/Liter)
Medium w/ SCC $4.53 $5.48 $5.02 $1.33
Modeling Assumptions
HOMER energy modeling software was used to analyze the Saint Mary’s power System. HOMER is a
static energy model designed to analyze hybrid power systems that contain a mix of conventional and
renewable energy sources, such as diesel generators, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc. Homer
software is widely used in the State of Alaska to aid development of village wind-diesel power projects.
HOMER modeling assumptions are detailed in the table below. Many assumptions, such as project life,
discount rate, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, etc. are AEA default values. Other
assumptions, such as diesel overhaul cost and time between overhaul are based on general rural Alaska
power generation experience.
The base or comparison scenario is the existing St. Mary’s/Andreafsky powerplant with its present
configuration of diesel generators. Also assumed in the base or comparison scenario is that excess
powerplant heat serves the thermal load via a heat recovery loop.
Wind turbines constructed at the Pitka’s Point site are assumed to operate in parallel with the diesel
generators. Excess energy will serve thermal loads via a secondary load controller and electric boiler.
Installation cost of either three NW100 wind turbines or one EWT-500 wind turbine assumes a three-
phase distribution line extension from the road to the wind turbine site plus a two-phase to three-phase
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 20
upgrade of the distribution system from the line extension tie-in to an existing three-phase distribution
point on the west side of the village of St. Mary’s.
Basic modeling assumptions
Economic Assumptions
Project life 20 years (2014 to 2033)
Discount rate 3%
System fixed O&M cost (non-fuel) $683,198/year (St. Mary’s only);
$964,500/year (St. Mary’s + Pilot Station)
Operating Reserves
Load in current time step 10%
Wind power output 50%
Fuel Properties (both types)
Heating value 43.2 MJ/kg (18,600 BTU/lb)
Density 820 kg/m3 (6.85 lb/gal)
Price $5.02/gal ($1.33/Liter)
Diesel Generators
Generator capital cost $0 (gensets already exist)
O&M cost $2.50/hour (at $0.02/kWh)
Time between overhauls 20,000 hours (run time)
Overhaul cost (all diesel gensets) $75,000
Minimum load 0 kW; based on AVEC’s inverter/battery integration plan to
enable diesels-off operation of the wind-diesel system
Schedule Optimized
Wind Turbines
Availability 80% (note that EWT turbine is guaranteed by manufacturer
to achieve 95% availability, less downtime due to icing)
O&M cost $0.0469/kWh for NP 100 and $0.018/kWh for EWT 52-900
(equates to $41,900/year for 3 NP 100 turbines and
$48,250/year for EWT 52-900; based on 34% turbine CF both
turbines)
Wind speed 7.69 m/s at the Pitka’s Point wind; scaled to 6.75 m/s in
Homer software for 80% turbine availability (38 meter level)
Energy Loads
Electric: St. Mary’s 8.74 MWh/day measured in St. Mary’s power plant
Electric: St. Mary’s + Pilot Station 13.73 MWh/day; St. Mary’s power plant data scaled to
accommodate Pilot Station load
Thermal 5.22 MWh/day based on recovered heat report written by
AEE, Inc.
Project Cost Assumptions
Three basic project configuration and benefit-to-cost evaluations are considered with Homer modeling,
as listed below.
Configuration Number:
1. Three Northern Power 100 wind turbines serving only the Saint Mary’s electrical and thermal
load; total project cost of $4,443,244.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 21
2. One EWT 52-900 wind turbine serving only the Saint Mary’s electrical and thermal load; total
project cost of $6,153,991.
3. One EWT 52-900 wind turbine serving an intertied Saint Mary’s and Pilot Station electrical load
and Saint Mary’s thermal load; total project cost of $6,413,991. This cost estimate reflects the
cost of installing one EWT 52-900 turbine in St. Mary’s plus the cost the St. Mary’s to Pilot
Station intertie less the avoided capital costs when closing the Pilot Station powerhouse and
consolidating generation operations to Saint Mary’s (see below).
Configuration 3: Saint Mary’s to Pilot Station cost summary
Project Item Cost
EWT turbine project cost, St. Mary’s $6.15 M
Intertie project cost + $5.95 M
Combined powerplant and bulk fuel upgrades (if intertied) + $12.31 M
Individual village powerplant and bulk fuel upgrades (no intertie - $18.00 M
Total cost: turbine project + St. Mary’s-to-Pilot Station intertie = $6.41 M
Percent cost increase from turbine project alone +4.2%
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 22
Homer Software Modeling Results
Configuration 1: St. Mary’s Only; No Intertie to Pilot Station, NP 100 Turbine Option
Three NP 100’s, 80% wind turbine availability (6.75 m/s mean wind speed)
NP100
Initial
capital
Operating
cost ($/yr) Total NPC
COE
($/kWh)
Wind
fraction Diesel (L)
Heating
oil arctic
(L)
Gen
1
(hrs)
Gen
2
(hrs)
Gen
3
(hrs)
Fuel use
avoided
(gal)
Wind
energy
(MWh)
Excess
electric
(%)
Excess
thermal
(%)
Base $0 1,905,939 $28,355,560 0.515 0.00 772,756 112,770 8,006 753 1 - - - -
3 $4,443,244 1,734,959 $30,255,056 0.556 0.17 586,700 138,341 8,486 274 0
42,400
836 - -
Project economics, turbine project compared to base case
Metric Value
Present worth ($1,899,513)
Annual worth $ -127,677/yr
Return on investment 3.86%
Internal rate of return n/a
Simple payback n/a
Discounted payback n/a
Benefit-to-cost ratio 0.94
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 23
Configuration 2: St. Mary’s Only; No Intertie to Pilot Station, EWT Turbine Option
One EWT 52-900, 80% wind turbine availability (6.75 m/s mean wind speed)
EWT
Initial
capital
Operating
cost ($/yr) Total NPC
COE
($/kWh)
Wind
fraction Diesel (L)
Heating
oil arctic
(L)
Gen
1
(hrs)
Gen
2
(hrs)
Gen
3
(hrs)
Fuel use
avoided
(gal)
Wind
energy
(MWh)
Excess
electric
(%)
Excess
thermal
(%)
1 $6,153,991 1,449,923 $27,725,176 0.502 0.43 405,133 104,250 7,865 154 0
99,377
2,484
21.5
18.6
Base $0 1,905,939 $28,355,560 0.515 0.00 772,756 112,770 8,006 753 1 - - - -
Project economics, turbine project compared to base case
Metric Value
Present worth $630,370
Annual worth $ 42,371/yr
Return on investment 7.42%
Internal rate of return 4.08%
Simple payback 13.6 yrs
Discounted payback 17.9 yrs
Benefit-to-cost ratio 1.03
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 24
Configuration 3: St. Mary’s Intertied to Pilot Station, EWT Turbine Option
EWT 52-900 turbine option, 80% wind turbine availability (6.75 m/s mean wind speed)
EWT
Initial
capital
Operating
cost ($/yr) Total NPC
COE
($/kWh)
Wind
fraction Diesel (L)
Heating
oil arctic
(L)
Gen
1
(hrs)
Gen
2
(hrs)
Gen
3
(hrs)
Fuel use
avoided
(gal)
Wind
energy
(MWh)
Excess
electric
(%)
Excess
thermal
(%)
1 $6,413,689 2,205,058 $39,219,376 0.465 0.33 778,409 85,173 4,478 2143 2137
128,075
2,484
6.3
9.9
Base $0 2,801,976 $41,686,320 0.498 0.00 1,301,806 46,540 1,478 2675 4654 - - - -
Project economics, turbine project compared to base case
Metric Value
Present worth $2,466,946
Annual worth $ 165,818/yr
Return on investment 9.30%
Internal rate of return 6.82%
Simple payback 10.9 yrs
Discounted payback 13.6 yrs
Benefit-to-cost ratio 1.06
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 25
Appendix A, WAsP Wind Farm Report, Pitka’s Point Site, NP 100
Turbines
9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100'
1/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
'Northern P ower 100' wind farm
P ro d u ce d o n 9 /1 2 /2 0 1 2 a t 1 0 :4 9 :3 0 AM b y lice n ce d u s e r: Do u g la s J . Va u g h t, V3 En e rg y, U SA u s in g W As P ve rs io n :
1 0 .0 2 .0 0 1 0
Summary re s ults
Pa r a m e te r To ta l A v e r a ge Minimum Ma x imum
Ne t AE P [MWh]1 0 2 5 .5 0 7 3 4 1 .8 3 6 3 3 7 .6 4 7 3 4 5 .1 0 5
Gross AE P [MWh]1 0 4 3 .3 6 5 3 4 7 .7 8 8 3 4 5 .9 4 2 3 5 0 .6 2 8
Wa k e lo ss [%]1 .7 1 ---
Site re s ults
Site Lo c a tion [m]Tur bine Ele v a tion [m ]He ight [m]Ne t AE P [MWh]Wa k e lo s s [%]
wtg 1 (5 9 1 5 7 7 , 6 8 7 9 3 9 2 )NW P 1 0 0 1 6 2 .1 8 0 9 3 8 3 3 7 .6 4 7 2 .4
wtg 2 (5 9 1 6 4 6 , 6 8 7 9 4 7 1 )NW P 1 0 0 1 6 9 .5 6 1 1 3 7 3 4 2 .7 5 6 2 .2 5
wtg 3 (5 9 1 7 1 5 , 6 8 7 9 5 5 2 )NW P 1 0 0 1 7 0 3 8 3 4 5 .1 0 5 0 .4 9
Site wind climate s
Site Lo c a tion [m]H [m]A [m/s]k U [m/s ]E [W/m²]RIX [%]dRIX [%]
wtg 1 (5 9 1 5 7 7 , 6 8 7 9 3 9 2 )3 8 8 .5 2 .0 2 7 .5 6 5 1 9 4 .0 0 .7
wtg 2 (5 9 1 6 4 6 , 6 8 7 9 4 7 1 )3 7 8 .6 2 .0 1 7 .6 3 5 3 6 3 .6 0 .4
wtg 3 (5 9 1 7 1 5 , 6 8 7 9 5 5 2 )3 8 8 .5 2 .0 2 7 .5 7 5 2 1 3 .5 0 .3
T h e win d fa rm lie s in a m a p ca lle d KW I GU Ku tm DV.
9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100'
2/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
T h e win d fa rm is in a p ro je ct ca lle d P itca P o in t_te s tca s e
A win d a tla s ca lle d W in d a tla s 2 wa s u s e d to ca lcu la te th e p re d icte d win d clim a te s
Calculation of annual output for 'Northe rn Powe r 100'
De ca y co n s ta n ts : 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5
0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5
0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5
Se cto r 1 (0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
wtg 1 9 .7 2 .2 9 5 .6 4 8 .5 8 2 4 .1 1 1 2 4 .1 1 1 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 9 .9 2 .2 8 5 .7 8 8 .7 4 2 5 .3 2 7 2 5 .3 2 7 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 9 .7 2 .3 0 5 .6 2 8 .6 0 2 4 .0 7 4 2 4 .0 7 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 to ta l ----7 3 .5 1 2 7 3 .5 1 2 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 (1 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
wtg 1 9 .4 2 .2 5 5 .5 1 8 .2 9 2 2 .3 6 8 2 2 .3 6 8 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 9 .5 2 .2 4 5 .6 0 8 .4 3 2 3 .2 7 3 2 3 .2 7 3 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 9 .4 2 .2 5 5 .5 6 8 .3 4 2 2 .7 7 5 2 2 .7 7 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 to ta l ----6 8 .4 1 7 6 8 .4 1 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 (2 0 °)
9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100'
3/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
wtg 1 8 .7 2 .1 2 4 .5 9 7 .7 2 1 6 .6 5 1 1 6 .6 5 1 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 8 .8 2 .1 0 4 .5 8 7 .7 9 1 6 .8 2 9 1 6 .8 2 9 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 8 .8 2 .1 3 4 .6 9 7 .8 0 1 7 .2 9 8 1 7 .2 9 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 to ta l ----5 0 .7 7 8 5 0 .7 7 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 4 (3 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
wtg 1 8 .1 2 .0 9 3 .7 8 7 .1 7 1 2 .1 2 3 1 0 .7 3 9 8 8 .5 8
wtg 2 8 .2 2 .1 0 3 .7 7 7 .2 5 1 2 .3 3 6 1 0 .9 8 4 8 9 .0 4
wtg 3 8 .2 2 .0 9 3 .8 4 7 .2 3 1 2 .5 1 3 1 2 .5 1 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 4 to ta l ----3 6 .9 7 2 3 4 .2 3 6 9 2 .6
Se cto r 5 (4 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
wtg 1 8 .1 2 .3 4 3 .5 2 7 .1 6 1 1 .2 6 8 7 .0 4 2 6 2 .4 9
wtg 2 8 .2 2 .3 3 3 .5 7 7 .2 8 1 1 .7 9 7 8 .5 8 6 7 2 .7 8
wtg 3 8 .2 2 .3 4 3 .5 8 7 .2 3 1 1 .6 4 5 1 1 .6 4 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 5 to ta l ----3 4 .7 1 0 2 7 .2 7 3 7 8 .5 7
Se cto r 6 (5 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
wtg 1 8 .9 2 .4 0 4 .1 1 7 .8 7 1 5 .5 0 3 1 2 .8 4 6 8 2 .8 6
wtg 2 8 .9 2 .3 9 4 .0 8 7 .9 1 1 5 .4 8 7 1 3 .6 1 2 8 7 .8 9
wtg 3 9 .0 2 .4 0 4 .1 8 7 .9 5 1 6 .0 1 3 1 6 .0 1 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 6 to ta l ----4 7 .0 0 2 4 2 .4 7 0 9 0 .3 6
Se cto r 7 (6 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
wtg 1 1 0 .0 2 .2 2 5 .1 9 8 .8 7 2 3 .0 6 4 2 3 .0 3 7 9 9 .8 8
wtg 2 1 0 .1 2 .2 1 5 .2 0 8 .9 3 2 3 .2 8 4 2 3 .2 8 4 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 1 0 .1 2 .2 2 5 .2 9 8 .9 7 2 3 .8 1 8 2 3 .8 1 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 7 to ta l ----7 0 .1 6 7 7 0 .1 3 9 9 9 .9 6
Se cto r 8 (7 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
wtg 1 9 .8 2 .1 0 4 .9 3 8 .6 6 2 1 .0 1 9 2 1 .0 1 9 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 9 .7 2 .0 8 4 .8 0 8 .6 1 2 0 .2 9 8 2 0 .2 9 8 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 9 .8 2 .0 9 4 .9 6 8 .7 0 2 1 .2 3 0 2 1 .2 3 0 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 8 to ta l ----6 2 .5 4 8 6 2 .5 4 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 9 (8 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
wtg 1 9 .1 2 .0 3 4 .2 3 8 .0 4 1 6 .2 1 9 1 6 .2 1 9 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 9 .0 2 .0 2 4 .1 2 8 .0 0 1 5 .6 5 7 1 5 .6 5 7 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 9 .1 2 .0 3 4 .2 2 8 .0 4 1 6 .1 6 3 1 6 .1 6 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 9 to ta l ----4 8 .0 3 9 4 8 .0 3 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 0 (9 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 8 .3 2 .1 3 3 .6 7 7 .3 8 1 2 .3 6 9 1 2 .3 6 9 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 8 .3 2 .1 2 3 .5 8 7 .3 5 1 2 .0 0 5 1 2 .0 0 5 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 8 .3 2 .1 3 3 .6 6 7 .3 8 1 2 .3 4 1 1 2 .3 4 1 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 0 to ta l ----3 6 .7 1 5 3 6 .7 1 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 1 (1 0 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100'
4/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
wtg 1 8 .0 2 .1 5 3 .4 1 7 .0 9 1 0 .7 5 3 1 0 .7 5 3 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 8 .0 2 .1 4 3 .3 5 7 .0 8 1 0 .5 2 6 1 0 .5 2 6 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 8 .0 2 .1 5 3 .3 7 7 .0 7 1 0 .5 7 7 1 0 .5 7 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 1 to ta l ----3 1 .8 5 5 3 1 .8 5 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 2 (1 1 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 7 .8 2 .1 0 2 .8 8 6 .9 0 8 .6 5 1 8 .6 5 1 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 7 .8 2 .0 9 2 .8 6 6 .9 0 8 .5 7 7 8 .5 7 7 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 7 .8 2 .1 0 2 .8 3 6 .8 8 8 .4 3 7 8 .4 3 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 2 to ta l ----2 5 .6 6 4 2 5 .6 6 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 3 (1 2 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 8 .0 2 .1 0 2 .3 2 7 .0 8 7 .2 8 3 7 .2 8 3 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 8 .0 2 .0 9 2 .3 2 7 .0 8 7 .2 8 2 7 .2 8 2 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 8 .0 2 .1 0 2 .2 7 7 .0 5 7 .0 8 9 7 .0 8 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 3 to ta l ----2 1 .6 5 4 2 1 .6 5 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 4 (1 3 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 8 .4 2 .1 2 1 .9 3 7 .4 6 6 .6 1 6 6 .6 1 6 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 8 .5 2 .1 1 1 .9 4 7 .4 9 6 .7 0 7 6 .7 0 7 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 8 .4 2 .1 2 1 .8 9 7 .4 1 6 .4 2 6 6 .4 2 6 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 4 to ta l ----1 9 .7 4 9 1 9 .7 4 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 5 (1 4 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 8 .9 1 .9 4 2 .0 0 7 .9 1 7 .4 2 4 7 .4 2 4 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 9 .0 1 .9 6 1 .9 9 7 .9 4 7 .4 5 5 7 .4 5 5 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 8 .8 1 .9 4 1 .9 6 7 .8 5 7 .2 0 9 7 .2 0 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 5 to ta l ----2 2 .0 8 7 2 2 .0 8 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 6 (1 5 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 9 .5 1 .6 7 2 .2 6 8 .4 5 8 .8 0 2 8 .8 0 2 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 9 .6 1 .6 7 2 .2 9 8 .5 8 9 .0 6 2 9 .0 6 2 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 9 .4 1 .6 7 2 .2 2 8 .4 0 8 .6 1 4 8 .6 1 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 6 to ta l ----2 6 .4 7 7 2 6 .4 7 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 7 (1 6 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 9 .6 1 .6 9 2 .4 2 8 .6 0 9 .6 5 1 9 .6 5 1 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 9 .8 1 .6 7 2 .4 7 8 .7 4 9 .9 7 4 9 .9 7 4 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 9 .6 1 .6 8 2 .3 9 8 .5 5 9 .4 4 6 9 .4 4 6 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 7 to ta l ----2 9 .0 7 1 2 9 .0 7 1 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 8 (1 7 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 9 .7 1 .8 2 2 .4 3 8 .6 0 9 .9 1 0 9 .9 1 0 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 9 .9 1 .8 2 2 .4 8 8 .7 7 1 0 .3 6 6 1 0 .3 6 6 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 9 .7 1 .8 2 2 .4 2 8 .6 0 9 .8 6 4 9 .8 6 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 8 to ta l ----3 0 .1 3 9 3 0 .1 3 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 9 (1 8 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 8 .4 1 .7 2 2 .1 0 7 .5 2 7 .1 5 0 7 .1 5 0 1 0 0 .0
9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100'
5/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
wtg 2 8 .6 1 .7 1 2 .1 5 7 .6 4 7 .4 5 6 7 .4 5 6 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 8 .5 1 .7 3 2 .1 2 7 .6 0 7 .3 2 4 7 .3 2 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 9 to ta l ----2 1 .9 3 1 2 1 .9 3 1 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 0 (1 9 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 7 .2 1 .7 9 1 .8 7 6 .3 7 4 .9 0 2 4 .9 0 2 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 7 .3 1 .7 9 1 .9 0 6 .4 5 5 .1 0 0 5 .1 0 0 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 7 .2 1 .7 8 1 .8 9 6 .4 4 5 .0 4 1 5 .0 4 1 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 0 to ta l ----1 5 .0 4 3 1 5 .0 4 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 1 (2 0 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 6 .4 1 .9 6 1 .5 4 5 .7 1 3 .2 1 8 3 .2 1 8 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 6 .5 1 .9 5 1 .5 4 5 .7 6 3 .2 7 1 3 .2 7 1 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 6 .5 1 .9 6 1 .5 8 5 .7 7 3 .3 6 4 3 .3 6 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 1 to ta l ----9 .8 5 3 9 .8 5 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 2 (2 1 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 5 .9 2 .0 7 1 .2 0 5 .2 5 2 .0 1 8 2 .0 1 8 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 6 .0 2 .0 7 1 .1 8 5 .3 0 2 .0 3 8 1 .7 2 3 8 4 .5 4
wtg 3 6 .0 2 .0 6 1 .2 2 5 .3 0 2 .1 0 8 1 .7 0 1 8 0 .7 3
Se cto r 2 2 to ta l ----6 .1 6 4 5 .4 4 3 8 8 .3
Se cto r 2 3 (2 2 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 5 .7 2 .3 5 0 .9 7 5 .0 9 1 .4 3 7 1 .4 3 7 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 5 .8 2 .3 7 0 .9 7 5 .1 6 1 .4 8 2 0 .8 0 0 5 4 .0 2
wtg 3 5 .8 2 .3 5 0 .9 9 5 .1 4 1 .4 9 9 0 .6 5 8 4 3 .8 8
Se cto r 2 3 to ta l ----4 .4 1 7 2 .8 9 5 6 5 .5 4
Se cto r 2 4 (2 3 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 6 .1 2 .7 9 0 .9 2 5 .4 5 1 .5 3 5 1 .5 3 5 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 6 .1 2 .7 8 0 .9 2 5 .4 7 1 .5 4 2 1 .1 1 0 7 2 .0 1
wtg 3 6 .2 2 .7 9 0 .9 4 5 .5 0 1 .6 0 2 1 .1 6 0 7 2 .4
Se cto r 2 4 to ta l ----4 .6 7 9 3 .8 0 6 8 1 .3 3
Se cto r 2 5 (2 4 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 6 .0 2 .7 2 1 .1 7 5 .3 7 1 .8 8 9 1 .8 8 9 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 6 .0 2 .7 1 1 .1 7 5 .3 7 1 .8 8 9 1 .8 8 2 9 9 .6 6
wtg 3 6 .1 2 .7 2 1 .1 9 5 .4 2 1 .9 6 9 1 .9 6 9 9 9 .9 9
Se cto r 2 5 to ta l ----5 .7 4 6 5 .7 4 0 9 9 .8 9
Se cto r 2 6 (2 5 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 6 .0 2 .5 5 1 .1 4 5 .3 5 1 .8 6 8 1 .8 6 8 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 6 .0 2 .5 3 1 .1 2 5 .3 3 1 .8 1 5 1 .8 1 5 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 6 .1 2 .5 4 1 .1 5 5 .3 8 1 .9 1 6 1 .9 1 6 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 6 to ta l ----5 .5 9 9 5 .5 9 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 7 (2 6 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 5 .9 2 .4 1 1 .0 1 5 .2 6 1 .6 0 9 1 .6 0 9 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 5 .9 2 .4 0 0 .9 8 5 .2 3 1 .5 5 0 1 .5 5 0 1 0 0 .0
9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100'
6/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
wtg 3 5 .9 2 .4 1 1 .0 1 5 .2 7 1 .6 1 8 1 .6 1 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 7 to ta l ----4 .7 7 7 4 .7 7 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 8 (2 7 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 5 .9 2 .4 2 1 .0 5 5 .2 7 1 .6 7 7 1 .6 7 7 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 5 .9 2 .4 2 1 .0 2 5 .2 5 1 .6 1 8 1 .6 1 8 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 6 .0 2 .4 4 1 .0 7 5 .2 9 1 .7 2 8 1 .7 2 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 8 to ta l ----5 .0 2 3 5 .0 2 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 9 (2 8 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 6 .4 2 .5 5 1 .4 3 5 .7 1 2 .7 6 3 2 .7 6 3 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 6 .4 2 .5 4 1 .3 9 5 .6 8 2 .6 5 6 2 .6 5 6 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 6 .5 2 .5 6 1 .4 3 5 .7 4 2 .7 9 5 2 .7 9 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 9 to ta l ----8 .2 1 4 8 .2 1 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 0 (2 9 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 7 .1 2 .6 3 1 .6 3 6 .3 0 3 .9 5 9 3 .9 5 9 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 7 .1 2 .6 2 1 .6 0 6 .2 8 3 .8 6 3 3 .8 6 3 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 7 .1 2 .6 3 1 .6 2 6 .2 9 3 .9 0 9 3 .9 0 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 0 to ta l ----1 1 .7 3 1 1 1 .7 3 1 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 1 (3 0 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 7 .6 2 .2 9 1 .7 1 6 .7 0 4 .8 3 4 4 .8 3 4 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 7 .6 2 .3 1 1 .6 9 6 .7 1 4 .7 7 9 4 .7 7 9 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 7 .5 2 .2 9 1 .6 9 6 .6 7 4 .7 2 7 4 .7 2 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 1 to ta l ----1 4 .3 3 9 1 4 .3 3 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 2 (3 1 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 8 .1 2 .0 3 2 .1 3 7 .1 5 6 .7 9 8 6 .7 9 8 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 8 .1 2 .0 3 2 .0 9 7 .1 8 6 .7 3 3 6 .7 3 3 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 8 .0 2 .0 3 2 .1 0 7 .1 1 6 .6 3 8 6 .6 3 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 2 to ta l ----2 0 .1 6 9 2 0 .1 6 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 3 (3 2 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 7 .5 2 .1 4 2 .8 2 6 .6 0 7 .7 9 1 7 .7 9 1 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 7 .5 2 .1 0 2 .7 9 6 .6 8 7 .8 7 7 7 .8 7 7 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 7 .4 2 .1 3 2 .7 7 6 .5 5 7 .5 2 6 7 .5 2 6 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 3 to ta l ----2 3 .1 9 5 2 3 .1 9 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 4 (3 3 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 8 .2 2 .4 9 3 .4 2 7 .2 5 1 1 .1 8 8 1 1 .1 8 8 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 8 .3 2 .4 7 3 .4 5 7 .3 3 1 1 .5 1 6 1 1 .5 1 6 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 8 .1 2 .4 9 3 .3 6 7 .1 9 1 0 .8 1 4 1 0 .8 1 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 4 to ta l ----3 3 .5 1 7 3 3 .5 1 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 5 (3 4 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 9 .0 2 .5 7 4 .1 1 8 .0 4 1 6 .1 0 4 1 6 .1 0 4 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 9 .2 2 .5 6 4 .1 8 8 .1 6 1 6 .7 4 9 1 6 .7 4 9 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 9 .0 2 .5 6 4 .0 4 7 .9 7 1 5 .6 3 8 1 5 .6 3 8 1 0 0 .0
9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100'
7/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
Se cto r 3 5 to ta l ----4 8 .4 9 1 4 8 .4 9 1 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 6 (3 5 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 9 .7 2 .4 5 4 .9 5 8 .6 0 2 1 .4 1 7 2 1 .4 1 7 1 0 0 .0
wtg 2 9 .9 2 .4 4 5 .0 6 8 .7 6 2 2 .4 5 4 2 2 .4 5 4 1 0 0 .0
wtg 3 9 .7 2 .4 6 4 .8 9 8 .5 7 2 1 .0 4 7 2 1 .0 4 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 6 to ta l ----6 4 .9 1 8 6 4 .9 1 8 1 0 0 .0
All Se cto rs
T ur bine Lo c a tio n [m]MWh (fre e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
wtg 1 (5 9 1 5 7 7 , 6 8 7 9 3 9 2 )3 4 5 .9 4 2 3 3 7 .6 4 7 9 7 .6
wtg 2 (5 9 1 6 4 6 , 6 8 7 9 4 7 1 )3 5 0 .6 2 8 3 4 2 .7 5 6 9 7 .7 5
wtg 3 (5 9 1 7 1 5 , 6 8 7 9 5 5 2 )3 4 6 .7 9 4 3 4 5 .1 0 5 9 9 .5 1
W in d f a rm -1 0 4 3 .3 6 5 1 0 2 5 .5 0 7 9 8 .2 9
Data origins information
T h e m a p wa s im p o rte d b y 'U s e r' fro m a file ca lle d
'C :\U s e rs \U s e r\Do cu m e n ts \W in d C o n s u ltL L C \Ala s k a \M AP S\KW I GU Ku tm DV.m a p ', o n a co m p u te r ca lle d 'SER VER '. T h e m a p
file d a ta we re la s t m o d if ie d o n th e 2 /7 /2 0 1 2 a t 6 :0 8 :3 7 P M
T h e re is n o in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e o rig in o f th e win d a tla s a s s o cia te d with th is win d f a rm .
T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r a s s o cia te d with th is win d fa rm wa s im p o rte d b y 'Do u g ' f ro m a f ile ca lle d
'C :\U s e rs \Do u g \Do cu m e n ts \W in d T u rb in e s \W As P tu rb in e cu rve s \NW 1 0 0 B_2 1 , 3 7 m e te r.wtg ', o n a co m p u te r ca lle d
'V3 ENER GY AC ER -P C '. T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r file wa s la s t m o d if ie d o n th e 8 /2 9 /2 0 1 2 a t 1 0 :3 5 :4 8 AM
Proje ct parame te rs
T h e win d fa rm is in a p ro je ct ca lle d P itca P o in t_te s tca s e .
H e re is a lis t o f a ll th e p a ra m e te rs with n o n -d e fa u lt va lu e s :
Air d e n s ity: 1 .2 7 2 (d e f a u lt is 1 .2 2 5 )
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 26
Appendix B, WAsP Turbine Site Report, Pitka’s Point Site, EWT Turbine
9/11/12 Turbine site report for 'EWT turbine site'
1/3file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
'EWT turbine site' Turbine site
P ro d u ce d o n 9 /1 1 /2 0 1 2 a t 1 1 :3 7 :1 9 P M b y lice n ce d u s e r: Do u g la s J . Va u g h t, V3 En e rg y, U SA u s in g W As P Ve rs io n :
1 0 .0 2 .0 0 1 0
Site information
Locati on i n the map
T h e tu rb in e is lo ca te d a t co -o rd in a te s (5 9 1 6 4 8 ,6 8 7 9 4 5 4 ) in a m a p ca lle d 'Kwig u k A3 '. T h e s ite e le va tio n is 1 7 0 .0 m
a .s .l.
Site e ffe cts
Se c to r Angle [°]Or .Spd [%]Or.Tur [°]Obs.Spd [%]Rgh.Spd [%]Rix [%]
1 0 2 7 .4 8 -6 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .2
2 1 0 2 2 .7 1 -6 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .0
3 2 0 1 8 .0 3 -5 .9 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
4 3 0 1 4 .0 6 -4 .5 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
5 4 0 1 1 .3 6 -2 .5 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .4
6 5 0 1 0 .3 6 -0 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .3
7 6 0 1 1 .2 4 2 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .7
9/11/12 Turbine site report for 'EWT turbine site'
2/3file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
8 7 0 1 3 .8 4 4 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .1
9 8 0 1 7 .7 5 5 .8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .5
1 0 9 0 2 2 .4 0 6 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .7
1 1 1 0 0 2 7 .1 8 6 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 3 .6
1 2 1 1 0 3 1 .5 4 5 .3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 4 .4
1 3 1 2 0 3 5 .0 0 3 .8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 5 .3
1 4 1 3 0 3 7 .2 4 2 .0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 5 .5
1 5 1 4 0 3 8 .0 4 0 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .2
1 6 1 5 0 3 7 .3 3 -1 .9 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .3
1 7 1 6 0 3 5 .1 9 -3 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .5
1 8 1 7 0 3 1 .7 9 -5 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 5 .9
1 9 1 8 0 2 7 .4 8 -6 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 5 .4
2 0 1 9 0 2 2 .7 1 -6 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 5 .1
2 1 2 0 0 1 8 .0 3 -5 .9 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .3
2 2 2 1 0 1 4 .0 6 -4 .5 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .3
2 3 2 2 0 1 1 .3 6 -2 .5 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 7 .7
2 4 2 3 0 1 0 .3 6 -0 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .9
2 5 2 4 0 1 1 .2 4 2 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .8
2 6 2 5 0 1 3 .8 4 4 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .9
2 7 2 6 0 1 7 .7 5 5 .8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .0
2 8 2 7 0 2 2 .4 0 6 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .0
2 9 2 8 0 2 7 .1 8 6 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 4 .7
3 0 2 9 0 3 1 .5 4 5 .3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 0 .6
3 1 3 0 0 3 5 .0 0 3 .8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .1
3 2 3 1 0 3 7 .2 4 2 .0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .8
3 3 3 2 0 3 8 .0 4 0 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .8
3 4 3 3 0 3 7 .3 3 -1 .9 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
3 5 3 4 0 3 5 .1 9 -3 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
3 6 3 5 0 3 1 .7 9 -5 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
T h e a ll-s e cto r R I X (ru g g e d n e s s in d e x ) f o r th e s ite is 3 .4 %
The pre dicte d wind climate at the turbine s ite
-T o ta l Wind a t ma x imum powe r de nsity dis tributio n
Me a n wind s pe e d 8 .4 5 m /s 1 3 .3 9 m /s
Me a n po we r de nsity 7 2 5 W /m ²6 3 (W /m ²)/(m /s )
9/11/12 Turbine site report for 'EWT turbine site'
3/3file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
Re s ults
Site Lo c a tion [m]Tur bine He ight [m ]Ne t AEP [GWh]Wa k e los s [%]
EW T tu rb in e s ite (5 9 1 6 4 8 , 6 8 7 9 4 5 4 )EW T 5 2 -9 0 0 5 0 3 .3 9 7 0 .0
T h e co m b in e d (o m n id ire ctio n a l) W e ib u ll d is trib u tio n p re d icts a g ro s s AEP o f 3 .4 3 2 GW h a n d th e e m e rg e n t (s u m o f
s e cto rs ) d is trib u tio n p re d icts a g ro s s AEP o f 3 .3 9 7 GW h . (T h e d if fe re n ce is 1 .0 2 % )
Proje ct parame te rs
T h e s ite is in a p ro je ct ca lle d Sa in t M a ry's EW T .
H e re is a lis t o f a ll th e p a ra m e te rs with n o n -d e fa u lt va lu e s :
Air d e n s ity: 1 .2 7 3 (d e f a u lt is 1 .2 2 5 )
Data origins information
T h e m a p wa s im p o rte d b y 'Do u g ' f ro m a f ile ca lle d 'C :\U s e rs \Do u g \Do cu m e n ts \AVEC \St M a rys \W As P \Su rf e r
co n ve rs io n \Kwig u k A3 .m a p ', o n a co m p u te r ca lle d 'V3 ENER GY AC ER -P C '. T h e m a p file d a ta we re la s t m o d if ie d o n th e
8 /3 1 /2 0 1 2 a t 9 :4 7 :3 8 AM
T h e re is n o in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e o rig in o f th e win d a tla s f ile .
T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r wa s im p o rte d b y 'Do u g ' fro m a file ca lle d 'C :\U s e rs \Do u g \Do cu m e n ts \W in d T u rb in e s \W As P
tu rb in e cu rve s \EW T 5 2 -9 0 0 , 5 0 m .wtg ', o n a co m p u te r ca lle d 'V3 ENER GY AC ER -P C '. T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r file we re
la s t m o d if ie d o n th e 8 /3 1 /2 0 1 2 a t 1 :1 2 :5 8 P M
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 27
Appendix C, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s, 3 NP 100 Turbines
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
1/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Sys te m Repor t - St M a r ys -Pilo t Stn, REF 6 a na lys is
Sensitivity case
Prim a ry Load 1 Scal ed Average:8,496 kWh/d
Win d Data Scaled Avera ge:6.75 m /s
EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.2 72 Capital Cos t Mu l tiplier:1
Sys te m Fixed O&M Cos t:683,1 98 $/yr
System architecture
Wind tu rbine 3 Northwin d100B, rho=1.272
QSX15 G9 499 kW
Cat 3508 611 kW
Cat 3512 908 kW
Cost summary
Total net pres ent cos t $ 30,255,056
Levelized cos t of energ y $ 0.556/kWh
Operating cos t $ 1,734,959 /yr
Ne t Pre se nt Costs
Component Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Sa lvage Total
($)($)($)($)($)($)
North w i nd100B, rho=1.27 2 4,443,24 4 0 623,366 0 0 5,066,61 1
QSX15G9 0 444,142 315,626 1 0,940,718 -21 ,344 11,679,14 2
Cat 35 08 0 0 10,191 668,347 -30 ,148 648,39 0
Cat 35 12 0 0 0 0 -40 ,695 -40,69 5
Boiler 0 0 0 2,737,356 0 2,737,35 6
Other 0 0 10,164,263 0 0 10,164,26 3
Sys te m 4,443,24 4 444,142 11,113,448 1 4,346,421 -92 ,187 30,255,06 4
Annua li z e d Costs
Component
Capital Replacement O&M Fue l Salvage Total
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
2/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)
North w i nd100B, rho=1.27 2 298,656 0 41,900 0 0 340,556
QSX15G9 0 29,853 21,215 735,3 88 -1,435 785,022
Cat 35 08 0 0 685 44,9 23 -2,026 43,582
Cat 35 12 0 0 0 0 -2,735 -2,735
Boiler 0 0 0 183,9 93 0 183,993
Other 0 0 683,198 0 0 683,198
Sys te m 298,656 29,853 746,998 964,3 05 -6,196 2 ,033,616
Electrical
Com ponent Production Fraction
(kWh/yr)
Wind turbines 836,2 47 27%
QSX15G9 2,140,2 60 69%
Cat 35 08 125,7 17 4%
Cat 35 12 0 0%
Total 3,102,2 23 100%
Load Consumption Fraction
(kWh/yr)
AC pri m a ry load 3,1 01,035 100 %
Total 3,1 01,035 100 %
Qua ntity Value Units
Exces s electricity 1,183 kWh /yr
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
3/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Unm et load 0.000549 kWh /yr
Capa ci ty s hortage 0.00 kWh /yr
Rene w able fraction 0.166
Thermal
Component Pr oduction Fraction
(kWh/yr)
QSX15G9 72 6,109 38%
Cat 35 08 4 5,463 2%
Boiler 1,13 8,333 60%
Exces s electricity 1,183 0%
Total 1,91 1,089 100%
Loa d Consumption Fraction
(kWh /yr)
Therm al load 1,905 ,663 100%
Total 1,905 ,663 100%
Quantity Value Units
Exces s therm al energy 5,426 kWh/yr
AC Wind Turbine: N orthw ind100B, rho=1.272
Variable Value Units
Total rate d capacity 300 kW
Mean output 95.5 kW
Capa ci ty factor 31.8 %
Total pro duction 8 36,247 kWh/yr
Variable Value Units
Minim um output 0.0 0 kW
Maxim u m output 29 5 kW
Wind pe netration 27 .0 %
Hours of operation 7,33 9 hr/yr
Levelized cos t 0.40 7 $/kWh
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
4/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
QSX15G9
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 8,486 hr/yr
Num ber of s tarts 88 s tarts /yr
Operational life 2.36 yr
Capa ci ty factor 49.0 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 21.0 $/hr
Margi nal generation co s t 0.285 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 2,140,260 kWh/yr
Mean electrical output 252 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 1.32 kW
Max. electrical output 453 kW
Therm al production 726,109 kWh/yr
Mean therm al output 85.6 kW
Min. the rm al output 24.3 kW
Max. therm al output 135 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 552,923 L /yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.258 L /kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 5,440,765 kWh/yr
Mean electrical efficiency 39.3 %
Mean total efficiency 52.7 %
Cat 3508
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 274 hr/yr
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
5/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Num ber of s tarts 87 s tarts /yr
Operational life 73.0 yr
Capa ci ty factor 2.35 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 25.2 $/hr
Margi nal generation co s t 0.316 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 125,717 kWh /yr
Mean electrical output 459 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 308 kW
Max. electrical output 546 kW
Therm al production 45,463 kWh /yr
Mean therm al output 166 kW
Min. the rm al output 121 kW
Max. therm al output 192 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 33,777 L/yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.269 L/kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 332,366 kWh/yr
Mean electrical efficiency 37.8 %
Mean total efficiency 51.5 %
Cat 3512
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 0 hr/yr
Num ber of s tarts 0 s tarts /yr
Operational life 1,000 yr
Capa ci ty factor 0.00 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 30.8 $/hr
Margi nal generation co s t 0.310 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 0.00 kWh/yr
Mean electrical output 0.00 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 0.00 kW
Max. electrical output 0.00 kW
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
6/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Therm al production 0.00 kWh/yr
Mean therm al output 0.00 kW
Min. the rm al output 0.00 kW
Max. therm al output 0.00 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 0 L/yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.000 L/kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 0 kWh /yr
Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 %
Mean total efficiency 0.0 %
Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (kg/yr)
Carbon d i oxide 1,911,0 06
Carbon m onoxide 3,8 14
Unbu rne d hydocarbon s 4 22
Particula te m atter 2 87
Sulfur d i oxide 3,8 51
Nitrog en oxides 34,0 29
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 28
Appendix D, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s, 1 EWT-500 Turbine
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
1/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Sys te m Repor t - St M a r ys -Pilo t Stn, REF 6 a na lys is
Sensitivity case
Prim a ry Load 1 Scal ed Average:8,496 kWh/d
Win d Data Scaled Avera ge:6.75 m /s
EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.2 72 Capital Cos t Mu l tiplier:1
Sys te m Fixed O&M Cos t:683,1 98 $/yr
System architecture
Wind tu rbine 1 EWT 52 -90 0, rho=1.272
QSX15 G9 499 kW
Cat 3508 611 kW
Cat 3512 908 kW
Cost summary
Total net pres ent cos t $ 27,725,176
Levelized cos t of energ y $ 0.502/kWh
Operating cos t $ 1,449,923 /yr
Ne t Pre se nt Costs
Component Capital Re placement O&M Fuel Salvage Total
($)($)($)($)($)($)
EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.272 6,153,991 0 717,838 0 0 6,871,830
QSX15G9 0 393,079 292,528 7,6 40,398 -5,60 6 8,320,399
Cat 35 08 0 0 5,728 3 75,983 -35,13 1 346,580
Cat 35 12 0 0 0 0 -40,69 5 -40,695
Boiler 0 0 0 2,0 62,807 0 2,062,807
Other 0 0 1 0,164,263 0 0 10,164,263
Sys te m 6,153,991 393,079 1 1,180,359 10,0 79,184 -81,43 2 27,725,180
Annua li z e d Costs
Component
Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
2/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)
EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.272 413,645 0 4 8,250 0 0 46 1,895
QSX15G9 0 26,421 1 9,663 513,555 -377 55 9,262
Cat 35 08 0 0 385 25,272 -2,361 2 3,296
Cat 35 12 0 0 0 0 -2,735 -2,735
Boiler 0 0 0 138,653 0 13 8,653
Other 0 0 68 3,198 0 0 68 3,198
Sys te m 413,645 26,421 75 1,496 677,480 -5,474 1,86 3,568
Electrical
Component Production Fraction
(kWh /yr)
Wind turbine 2,483,95 0 63%
QSX15G9 1,394,67 0 35%
Cat 35 08 70,73 1 2%
Cat 35 12 0 0%
Total 3,949,35 1 100%
Load Consumption Fraction
(kWh/yr)
AC pri m a ry load 3,1 01,035 100 %
Total 3,1 01,035 100 %
Qua ntity Value Units
Exces s electricity 84 8,323 kWh /yr
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
3/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Unm et load 0.000183 kWh /yr
Capa ci ty s hortage 0.00 kWh /yr
Rene w able fraction 0.425
Thermal
Component Pr oduction Fraction
(kWh/yr)
QSX15G9 52 9,058 23%
Cat 35 08 2 5,573 1%
Boiler 85 7,821 38%
Exces s electricity 84 8,323 38%
Total 2,26 0,776 100%
Loa d Consumption Fraction
(kWh /yr)
Therm al load 1,905 ,663 100%
Total 1,905 ,663 100%
Quantity Value Units
Exces s therm al energy 355,113 kWh /yr
AC Wind Turbine: E WT 52-900, rho=1.272
Variable Value Units
Total rate d capacity 900 kW
Mean output 284 kW
Capa ci ty factor 31.5 %
Total pro duction 2 ,483,950 kWh/yr
Variable Value Units
Minim um output 0.0 0 kW
Maxim u m output 88 5 kW
Wind pe netration 80 .1 %
Hours of operation 8,21 8 hr/yr
Levelized cos t 0.18 6 $/kWh
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
4/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
QSX15G9
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 7,865 hr/yr
Num ber of s tarts 232 s tarts /yr
Operational life 2.54 yr
Capa ci ty factor 31.9 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 21.0 $/hr
Margi nal generation co s t 0.285 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 1,394,670 kWh/yr
Mean electrical output 177 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 0.188 kW
Max. electrical output 453 kW
Therm al production 529,058 kWh/yr
Mean therm al output 67.3 kW
Min. the rm al output 24.0 kW
Max. therm al output 135 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 386,131 L /yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.277 L /kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 3,799,532 kWh/yr
Mean electrical efficiency 36.7 %
Mean total efficiency 50.6 %
Cat 3508
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 154 hr/yr
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
5/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Num ber of s tarts 59 s tarts /yr
Operational life 130 yr
Capa ci ty factor 1.32 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 25.2 $/hr
Margi nal generation co s t 0.316 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 70,731 kWh/yr
Mean electrical output 459 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 368 kW
Max. electrical output 546 kW
Therm al production 25,573 kWh/yr
Mean therm al output 166 kW
Min. the rm al output 139 kW
Max. therm al output 192 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 19,001 L/yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.269 L/kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 186,974 kWh/yr
Mean electrical efficiency 37.8 %
Mean total efficiency 51.5 %
Cat 3512
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 0 hr/yr
Num ber of s tarts 0 s tarts /yr
Operational life 1,000 yr
Capa ci ty factor 0.00 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 30.8 $/hr
Margi nal generation co s t 0.310 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 0.00 kWh/yr
Mean electrical output 0.00 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 0.00 kW
Max. electrical output 0.00 kW
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
6/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Therm al production 0.00 kWh/yr
Mean therm al output 0.00 kW
Min. the rm al output 0.00 kW
Max. therm al output 0.00 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 0 L/yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.000 L/kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 0 kWh /yr
Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 %
Mean total efficiency 0.0 %
Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (kg/yr)
Carbon d i oxide 1,342,6 80
Carbon m onoxide 2,6 33
Unbu rne d hydocarbon s 2 92
Particula te m atter 1 99
Sulfur d i oxide 2,7 07
Nitrog en oxides 23,4 98
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 29
Appendix E, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s + Pilot Station, 1 EWT-500
Turbine
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
1/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Sys te m Repor t - St M a r ys -Pilo t Stn, REF 6 a na lys is
Sensitivity case
Prim a ry Load 1 Scal ed Average:13,72 6 kWh/d
Win d Data Scaled Avera ge:6.75 m /s
EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.2 72 Capital Cos t Mu l tiplier:1.04
Sys te m Fixed O&M Cos t:964,5 00 $/yr
System architecture
Wind tu rbine 1 EWT 52 -90 0, rho=1.272
QSX15 G9 499 kW
Cat 3508 611 kW
Cat 3512 908 kW
Cost summary
Total net pres ent cos t $ 39,219,376
Levelized cos t of energ y $ 0.465/kWh
Operating cos t $ 2,205,058 /yr
Ne t Pre se nt Costs
Component Capital Re placement O&M Fuel Salvage Total
($)($)($)($)($)($)
EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.272 6,413,689 0 717,838 0 0 7,131,528
QSX15G9 0 218,024 166,553 3,8 32,180 -21,67 6 4,195,081
Cat 35 08 0 100,115 79,706 4,9 15,244 -35,58 8 5,059,477
Cat 35 12 0 100,004 79,483 6,6 54,991 -35,83 7 6,798,643
Boiler 0 0 0 1,6 85,331 0 1,685,331
Other 0 0 1 4,349,329 0 0 14,349,329
Sys te m 6,413,689 418,143 1 5,392,909 17,0 87,746 -93,10 1 39,219,392
Annua li z e d Costs
Component
Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
2/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)
EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.272 431,101 0 48,250 0 0 479,351
QSX15G9 0 14,655 11,195 257,5 83 -1,457 281,975
Cat 35 08 0 6,729 5,358 330,3 82 -2,392 340,076
Cat 35 12 0 6,722 5,343 447,3 20 -2,409 456,976
Boiler 0 0 0 113,2 81 0 113,281
Other 0 0 9 64,500 0 0 964,500
Sys te m 431,101 28,106 1,0 34,645 1,148,5 65 -6,258 2 ,636,159
Electrical
Component Production Fraction
(kWh /yr)
Wind turbine 2,483,95 0 46%
QSX15G9 672,03 8 13%
Cat 35 08 916,91 7 17%
Cat 35 12 1,275,51 8 24%
Total 5,348,42 2 100%
Load Consumption Fraction
(kWh/yr)
AC pri m a ry load 5,0 09,989 100 %
Total 5,0 09,989 100 %
Qua ntity Value Units
Exces s electricity 338 ,447 kWh/yr
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
3/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Unm et load 0.00555 kWh/yr
Capa ci ty s hortage 0.00 kWh/yr
Rene w able fraction 0 .332
Thermal
Component Pr oduction Fraction
(kWh/yr)
QSX15G9 27 1,406 13%
Cat 35 08 33 6,030 16%
Cat 35 12 44 7,474 21%
Boiler 70 0,847 33%
Exces s electricity 33 8,447 16%
Total 2,09 4,204 100%
Loa d Consumption Fraction
(kWh /yr)
Therm al load 1,905 ,663 100%
Total 1,905 ,663 100%
Quantity Value Units
Exces s therm al energy 188,542 kWh /yr
AC Wind Turbine: E WT 52-900, rho=1.272
Variable Value Units
Total rate d capacity 900 kW
Mean output 284 kW
Capa ci ty factor 31.5 %
Total pro duction 2 ,483,950 kWh/yr
Variable Value Units
Minim um output 0.0 0 kW
Maxim u m output 88 5 kW
Wind pe netration 49 .6 %
Hours of operation 8,21 8 hr/yr
Levelized cos t 0.19 3 $/kWh
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
4/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
QSX15G9
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 4,478 hr/yr
Num ber of s tarts 431 s tarts /yr
Operational life 4.47 yr
Capa ci ty factor 15.4 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 21.0 $/hr
Margi nal generation co s t 0.285 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 672,038 kWh /yr
Mean electrical output 150 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 0.413 kW
Max. electrical output 499 kW
Therm al production 271,406 kWh /yr
Mean therm al output 60.6 kW
Min. the rm al output 24.0 kW
Max. therm al output 146 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 193,671 L /yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.288 L /kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 1,905,724 kWh/yr
Mean electrical efficiency 35.3 %
Mean total efficiency 49.5 %
Cat 3508
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 2,143 hr/yr
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
5/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Num ber of s tarts 680 s tarts /yr
Operational life 9.33 yr
Capa ci ty factor 17.1 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 25.2 $/hr
Margi nal generation co s t 0.316 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 916,917 kWh /yr
Mean electrical output 428 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 22.6 kW
Max. electrical output 555 kW
Therm al production 336,030 kWh /yr
Mean therm al output 157 kW
Min. the rm al output 37.4 kW
Max. therm al output 194 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 248,407 L /yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.271 L /kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 2,444,326 kWh/yr
Mean electrical efficiency 37.5 %
Mean total efficiency 51.3 %
Cat 3512
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 2,137 hr/yr
Num ber of s tarts 302 s tarts /yr
Operational life 9.36 yr
Capa ci ty factor 16.0 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 30.8 $/hr
Margi nal generation co s t 0.310 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 1,275,518 kWh/yr
Mean electrical output 597 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 89.2 kW
Max. electrical output 814 kW
9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis
6/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm
Therm al production 447,474 kWh/yr
Mean therm al output 209 kW
Min. the rm al output 65.2 kW
Max. therm al output 271 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 336,331 L /yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.264 L /kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 3,309,494 kWh/yr
Mean electrical efficiency 38.5 %
Mean total efficiency 52.1 %
Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (kg/yr)
Carbon d i oxide 2,275,1 65
Carbon m onoxide 5,0 60
Unbu rne d hydocarbon s 5 60
Particula te m atter 3 81
Sulfur d i oxide 4,5 77
Nitrog en oxides 45,1 48
St. Marys Wind Turbines
Golder Associates Inc.
2121 Abbott Road, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99507 USA
Tel: (907) 344-6001 Fax: (907) 344-6011 www.golder.com
Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
September 11, 2012 113-95706
Mr. Jeff Stanley, PE
CRW Engineering Group LLC
3940 Arctic Blvd, Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99503
RE: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND CONCEPTUAL LEVEL FOUNDATION
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROPOSED WIND ENERGY PROJECT, ST. MARYS, AK
Dear Mr. Stanley:
This report presents the results of Golder Associates Inc . (Golder) geotechnical exploration, laboratory
testing and conceptual level foundation recommendations for the proposed wind energy project in St.
Marys, Alaska. Our work has been conducted in general accordance with Golder’s proposal to CRW
Engineering Group, LLC (CRW), dated August 23, 2011 and our Letter of Authorization from you.
Wind turbines are proposed for both the Yukon River villages of St. Marys and Mountain Village, Figure 1.
Golder conducted geotechnical reconnaissance in both villages and a subsequent geotechnical
exploration at the St. Marys turbine site. This report discusses our reconnaissance findings for one tower
array location in St. Marys and two tower array locations in Mountain Village as well as the geotechnical
exploration effort and conceptual-level foundation recommendations for the St. Marys tower array
location.
The proposed St. Marys wind turbines site is an undeveloped area southwest of the village, near Pitkas
Point Borrow Site No. 3, Figure 2. Based on information provided by CRW, we understand the Alaska
Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is considering either three Northwind 100 or a single EWT 52/900
wind turbine system at the St. Marys site. The foundation design loads have not been developed nor
provided to us at this time.
1.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
1.1 Site Reconnaissance
A reconnaissance of the proposed wind turbine site at St. Marys and of the proposed wind turbine sites
(primary and alternate) in Mountain Village was conducted on August 18 and 19, 2011 by Mr. Matt Dillon
of Golder. Thaw probes were advanced at the sites to determine the active layer depth at the time of the
reconnaissance. Thaw probes were conducted with ½-inch diameter by 5 foot long steel T-probe
advanced by hand to refusal or the safe working length of the probe. In late summer, thaw probe
penetration refusal is inferred to be the contact with permafrost or relict seasonal frost.
1.1.1 St. Marys Site
The St. Marys site (where the former AVEC meteorological tower was located) is generally flat terrain on
a gradual, north-facing slope. Probe refusal was typically between one to two feet below ground surface
at the time of our site work (bgs). Tundra vegetation covers the site with some taller brush along drainage
areas, primary in the north end of site. Surface mounds were noted in aerial photography as well as on
the ground. Probe refusal on the top of the mounds was at about 2 feet bgs. Surface water was not
noted at the proposed turbine locations.
Jeff Stanley September 11, 2012
CRW 2 113-95706
St. Marys Wind Turbines
1.1.2 Mountain Village (Primary Site)
The primary site for the wind turbines at Mountain Village had a meteorological tower at the time of our
site visit. The site is several miles east of the village, north of the road to St. Marys, Figure 3. The site is
located on a level plateau overlooking the Yukon River. Typical vegetation is tundra and short grass.
Probe refusal was between 1 to 2 feet bgs. A shallow hand dug test pit was advanced to 2.1 feet bgs in a
tundra area near the roadway. Organic soil (peat) was observed in the test pit to the refusal surface in
frozen fibrous peat.
1.1.3 Mountain Village (Alternate Site)
The alternate site for the wind turbines Mountain Village site is between the primary site and the village.
The site is located on a level plateau overlooking the Yukon River, Figure 3. Typical vegetation includes
tundra and short grass. Probe refusal at the site was typically between 1 to 2 feet bgs. Water-filled
troughs were present on the west end of the site. The shallowest probe refusal depths in the wet areas
on the west side were 4 feet bgs and probe refusal was not encountered to the 5-foot probe depth in
some of the wet areas.
1.2 St. Marys Wind Turbine Site Geotechnical Field Exploration
The field investigation and subsurface exploration was conducted October 26 and 27, 2011. The field
exploration consisted of excavating and sampling a total of three test pits, Figure 4. The test pits were
advanced with the city of St. Marys Public Works Cat 330 track excavator and operator. Mr. Jacob
Randazzo was Golder’s on-site representative for the field explorations.
One test pit was excavated at each proposed wind t urbine location as identified by CRW . The test pit
locations were identified in the field with a hand held GPS instrument based on GPS coordinates provided
by CRW . Utility locates were coordinated with statewide and local utilities by Golder prior to conducting
the geotechnical explorations.
The test pits were logged and sampled as they were excavated. Disturbed, but representative, soil
samples were collected from either the excavator bucket or the stockpile of excavated soil. The
recovered samples were visually classified in the field and sealed in plastic bags. The samples were
transported to Golder’s Anchorage laboratory for further examination, cl assification, and geotechnical
index property testing. Upon completion of the explorations, the test pits were backfilled with soil
removed during the excavation. A sealed 1.25-inch inside diameter (ID) schedule-40 PVC casing was
installed in test pit TP-1 prior to backfilling for future ground temperature measurements by others.
The soils observed were visually classified in the field according to the Unified Soils Classification System
(USCS) shown in Figure 5. Visual ice in recovered samples was classified in general accordance with the
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM D4083 -89) for frozen soil classification, as described in
Figure 6. The test pit logs are presented in Figures 7 through 9. Consistency or density of the
subsurface materials, as described in this report and shown in the test pit logs, was estimated based on
excavation effort and sidewall stability and should be considered approximate.
Groundwater levels were noted during the excavation are presented on the respective test pit logs, where
observed. Groundwater monitoring standpipes were not installed in any of the test pits.
1.3 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed to determine index properties of select soil samples to confirm field
classifications and to determine geotechnical properties for engineering analysis . Moisture content tests
were generally conducted according to procedures described in ASTM D -2216. Particle size distributions
were conducted in general conformance with procedures described in AST M D-422.
A summary of laboratory test results is presented in the Sample Summary, Appendix A. Laboratory test
results are also summarized graphically on the test pit logs.
Jeff Stanley September 11, 2012
CRW 3 113-95706
St. Marys Wind Turbines
2.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND CLIMATE
2.1 Regional Geologic Conditions
St. Marys is located on the Andreafsky River near its confluence with the Yukon River. The village is
located near the southern termination of the Nulato Hills. The village occupies a gently sloping hillside on
the north bank of the Andreafsky River. The Nu lato Hills rise to the north and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
extends to the south and west.
Local terrain is characterized by gently sloping hills covered with tundra, moss, grass, scattered patches
of dense willow brush and occasional black spruce. The Nul ato Hills are composed of Cretaceous
sedimentary bedrock, consisting mostly of siltstone, shale, and fine-grained sandstone. Bedrock is
generally overlain by a mantel of fine-grained alluvial, colluvial and eolian deposits. Solifluction lobes are
apparent on some upper slopes. In many places, fragments of the weathered bedrock surface have
been incorporated into the overlying silt by wind, frost, and gravity action.
2.2 Regional Climate Conditions
St. Marys lies in an area influenced by both maritime and continental climate. Temperatures average
about 50°F in summer and about 15°F in winter, with extremes from -44 to 83°F. Annual snowfall
averages 60 inches, and total annual precipitation averages 16 inches. The Yukon River is typically ice-
free from June through October.
Design climate data, including average thawing and freezing indices, are summarized below for the St.
Marys area. The indices are calculated from data available by the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning (SNAP). Design indices are based on the three coldest winters
(Design Freezing Index) and the three warmest summers (Design Thawing Index) observed or projected
during the analysis period. Climate indices for the thirty year periods for 1947-1978 and 1979-2009 are
based on the UAF SNAP data. The projected climate indices for 2012-2042 are based on SNAP model
scenarios.
St. Marys Recommended
Climate Indices 1947-1978 1979-2009 2012-2042
Average Air Temperature 29.4 °F 31.4 °F 33.7 °F
Average Freezing Index 3730 °F-days 3220 °F-days 2560 °F-days
Design Freezing Index 4710 °F-days 4190 °F-days 3180 °F-days
Average Thawing Index 2770 °F-days 3010 °F-days 3740 °F-days
Design Thawing Index 3100 °F-days 3440 °F-days 3945 °F-days
SNAP data are distributed as two separate products , historical data and forward looking projections.
Historical records were calculated using the PRISM model by combining climate data from multiple
meteorological records across the state of Alaska from 1901 to 2009 . These data area modeled across
the state in a manner that accounts for variations in slope, aspect, elevation, and coastal proximity.
Forward-looking projections were prepared from 2009 to 2099 utilizing multiple global climate models and
several carbon emission scenarios. The ECHAM5 global climate model results were used for the 2012 -
2042 climate data projection. The ECHAM5 model was determined by the SNAP group to be most
applicable to Alaska. The A1B carbon emission scenario was used for our projected climate data. This
carbon emission model is considered a mid-range future emissions scenario.
Climate trends show that air temperatures in Alaska are rising. As indicated by the reviewe d data, the
average air temperature from 1979 to 2009 is approximately 2°F higher than the prior 30-year period. As
Jeff Stanley September 11, 2012
CRW 4 113-95706
St. Marys Wind Turbines
a result of increasing air temperatures, the near surface permafrost in the area is expected to warm and
possibly thaw in some areas.
3.0 GENERALIZED SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The general subsurface conditions at the wind turbine site consist of a thin surficial organic mat one to
two feet thick, overlying a wind-blown silt to a contact with shallow weathered bedrock. The bedrock is
weathered and fractured near the bedrock contact becoming more difficult to excavate with depth. The
greater excavation effort is inferred to represent increasing rock competency. The highly fractured
bedrock is weathered to soil-like fabric and has been logged as dense gravel with cobble size clasts with
some silt. Less fractured bedrock was observed and is logged as bedrock on the test pit logs.
Observations conducted at the nearby Pitkas Point material site indicate that within the competent
bedrock, silt infilling within rock fractures and discontinuities is not significant.
The site is generally underlain by shallow permafrost observed within at 2 feet bgs in test pits TP-1 and
TP-2. Frozen ground was not inferred by excavator action or behavior in test pit TP-3 where granular
material was observed beneath the organic mat.
Test pit TP-1 is located nearest to the road and was excavated to 11 feet bgs. The upper two feet
consisted of soft, wet peat and organic silt. Ground water was observed at one foot deep in the test pit
near the permafrost contact. Frozen ice-rich silt was observed to eight feet deep . Frozen gravelly
material with silt was observed between 8 and 11 feet deep and is interpreted as highly fractured and
weathered bedrock. The test pit was excavated to refusal in a less fractured weathered bedrock at 11
feet bgs.
Test pit TP-2 was excavated to 12 feet bgs. An unfrozen organic layer was observed in the upper two
feet, consisting of peat and organic silt. Frozen ice-rich silt was observed to 9 feet bgs. Silty gravel was
observed between 9 and 11 feet, and is interpreted as highly fractured, weathered bedrock. Less
fractured, more competent bedrock was observed at 11 to 12 feet bgs.
Test pit TP-3 was located at the highest elevation of the three proposed turbine sites and was excavated
to a depth of 12 feet bgs. . An unfrozen organic layer consisting of peat and organic silt was observed to
1 foot bgs, underlain by medium dense gravel sized material, interpreted as highly fractured and
weathered bedrock. Less fractured, weathered bedrock was observed at 6 feet to 11 feet bgs, becoming
harder between 11 and 12 feet bgs. The fractured rock did not exhibit significant ice-bonding and may be
unfrozen or if frozen, it is considered an ice-poor, unbonded material.
4.0 LABORATORY RESULTS
Laboratory test results conducted on frozen silty material above the bedrock indicates soil moisture
contents in excess of thawed state saturation levels are present. Soil moisture contents in the weathered
bedrock samples are significantly lower than in the overlying ice -rich silt y material. Summary soil
moisture content as a percent of dry weight and general soil type are shown below.
Jeff Stanley September 11, 2012
CRW 5 113-95706
St. Marys Wind Turbines
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCEPTUAL-LEVEL
FOUNDATION RECOMMEND ATIONS
The locations explored at the proposed St. Marys wind turbine site should be suitable for gravity mat
foundation systems for the Northwind 100 units. A gravity mat foundation system will most likely be
suitable for an EWT 52/900 unit also. The foundations must extend to the competent bedrock (siltstone)
and should not be founded on the ice-rich silty soil or highly fractured bedrock . The reinforced concrete
mat foundations may be cast on a properly prepared rock surface. Alternatively, a non-frost susceptible
structural fill can be placed between the exposed bedrock and the base of the foundation as a leveling
course, if needed. Structural fill should be well graded sand and gravel placed in a fully thawed state and
compacted to at least 95 percent of modified Proctor, ASTM D-1557. A material meeting the Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) Subbase “A” specification is considered
suitable for structural fill. We recommended at least two feet of structural fill be placed under the wind
turbine foundations. Backfill above the wind turbine foundations should be clean, well graded sand and
gravel. Backfill above the foundations should be compacted as recommended for structural fill.
The foundation embedment depth will be determined once final design loads are provided and we are
able to coordinate with the structural engineer. However, the depth of embedment must be sufficiently
deep to resist overturn load with an appropriate factor of safety and not allow the foundation mat to
experience a tension load state under any load condition. If a tension load state is expected based on
foundation geometry and environmental loads, we should be contacted during the design phase.
If structural fill is placed over bedrock as discussed above, a prel iminary allowable bearing capacity of
3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used. A 50-percent increase in the allowable bearing capacity
can be used for short-term transient loads.
The structural fill should extend at least three feet horizontally from the foundation perimeter then at a
1H:1V (horizontal:vertical) slope to the exposed bedrock surface, provided the structural fill is fully
constrained by in-place soil or bedrock. If the foundations are prepared as discussed above, settlements
are expected to be less than 1-inch total with 0.5-inch differential.
The site has ice-rich permafrost and the overlying icy soils that may produce water and the material may
slough as it thaws. Construction methods should anticipate and control sidewall slough and water. It is
critical the excavations extend to a bedrock surface with minimal silt filling along rock discontinuities to
control settlement. If overexcavation is required to expose a suitable bedrock surface, structural fill is
required to the base of the foundation mat. We should be retained to observe the exposed bedrock
0 ft
2 ft
4 ft
6 ft
8 ft
10 ft
12 ft
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Depth below ground sruface
(% of dry weight)
Soil Moisture Content
Silt (ML) Gravel (GP - GM, GM)
≤
REFERENCE
TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP PROVIDED U.S. GEOLOGIC SURVEY
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2011 jobs\113-95706 avec st marys mtn village wind recon\CAD\Vicinity Map.dwg | 9/10/2012 10:04 AM | MFurrer | ALASKA1
NA ----
DBC 1/9/11
RAM 9/10/12
RAM 9/10/12
0 ----
FIG.
113-95706
Vicinity Map.dwg
AVEC / ST MARYS/ AK
VICINITY MAP
PROPOSED WIND TURBINES
SAINT MARYS , ALASKA
SAINT MARYS
PROJECT AREA
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
PROJECT AREA
SCALE
0
MILES
5 5
PROJECT
AREA
J:\2011 jobs\113-95706 avec st marys mtn village wind recon\CAD\site-map.dwg | 9/10/2012 10:06 AM | MFurrer | ALASKA
2--------DBC1/5/12RAM9/10/12RAM9/10/120----FIG.113-95706site-map.dwgAVEC / ST MARYS/ AKSAINT MARYS PROJECT AREA MAPPROPOSED WIND TURBINES SAINT MARYS, ALASKACHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.SCALE01/21/2MILESAINT MARYSAIR
P
O
R
T
R
DPROJECT LOCATIONAIRPORTIMAGE DATED:SUPPLIED BY AND SOURCED UNDER LICENCEFROM GOOGLE EARTH PRO ON :IMAGE GEOREFERENCED BY GOLDER ANDINTENDED FOR INDICATIVE PURPOSES ONLYSource: Google Earth Pro 201009/03/200609/03/2006
J:\2011 jobs\113-95706 avec st marys mtn village wind recon\CAD\Mointain_Village.dwg | 9/10/2012 10:08 AM | MFurrer | ALASKA
3NA----DBC1/10/12RAM9/10/12RAM9/10/120----FIG.113-95706Mointain_Village.dwgAVEC / MOINTAIN VILLAGE / AKMOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROJECTAREA MAPPROPOSED WIND TURBINES MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, ALASKACHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.REFERENCE1.BASE MAP IMAGERY COLLECTED BYGEOEYE DATED 06/09/2006 AND PROVIDEDBY ALASKA STATEWIDE DIGITAL MAPPINGINITIATIVE.2.TOPO BASEMAP IS DRG PROVIDED BYU.S.GEOLOGIC SURVEY.SCALE01/21/2MILEPRIMARY SITEALTERNATE SITE
TP-1TP-2TP-31.BASE MAP PROVIDED BY CRW ENGINEERING GROUP LLC.FROM SAINT MARYS ALASKA, WIND TURBINE PROJECTDATED 8/17/11.LEGENDLEGENDTP-1GOLDER TEST PIT NAME ANDAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONJ:\2011 jobs\113-95706 avec st marys mtn village wind recon\CAD\site-map.dwg | 9/10/2012 10:09 AM | MFurrer | ALASKA
4--------DBC1/5/12RAM9/10/12RAM9/10/120----FIG.113-95706site-map.dwgAVEC / ST MARYS/ AKSAINT MARYS TEST PIT LOCATION MAPPROPOSED WIND TURBINES SAINT MARYS, ALASKACHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.REFERENCESAINTMARYSAIRPORTAIRPORT RDPITKA'S
P
O
I
N
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
D
SCALE0FEET15001500
DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR
PERCENTAGES (ASTM D 2488-00)
CU 6 AND 1 CC 3
CU < 6 AND/OR 1 > CC > 3
CLEAN SANDS
<5% FINES
SANDS AND FINES
>12% FINES
SANDS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT <50
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT 50
50% OF COARSE
FRACTION PASSES
ON NO 4. SIEVE
If soil contains 15% gravel, add"with gravel"VERY LOOSE
LOOSE
COMPACT
DENSE
VERY DENSE
VERY SOFT
SOFT
FIRM
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
CONSISTENCY
0 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
OVER 30
0 - 0.25
0.25 - 0.50
0.50 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 4.0
OVER 4.0
RELATIVE DENSITY
0 - 4
4 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
OVER 50
COHESIONLESS SOILS (a)COHESIVE SOILS(b)
RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY ESTIMATE
USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) VALUES
D 30( )
2
PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR
SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND
>50% OF COARSE
FRACTION RETAINED
ON NO 4. SIEVE
DPLASTICITY INDEX (PI)Figure
5SOIL CLASSIFICATION / LEGEND
LIBRARY-ANC(9-20-11).GLB [ANC_SOIL_LEGEND] 1/12/12Gravels or sands with 5% to 12% fines require dual symbols (GW-GM, GW-GC, GP-GM, GP-GC, SW-SM, SW-SC, SP-SM, SP-SC)
and add "with clay" or "with silt" to group name. If fines classify as CL-ML for GM or SM, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.
Optional Abbeviations: Lower case "s" after USCS group symbol
denotes either "sandy" or "with sand" and
"g" denotes either "gravelly" or "with gravel"
N1 (BLOWS/
FOOT)(c)
N1 (BLOWS/
FOOT)(c)
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (TSF)(d)
10D =
LL (oven dried)
LL (not dried)
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
(OH, OL) if:
(4 PI 7)
x
60
DC
60
PEATCOARSE-GRAINED SOILS>50% RETAINED ONNO. 200 SIEVEGRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS
<5% FINES
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
>12% FINES
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7
CC
10D=U
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
CL
ML
OL
CH
MH
OH
TRACE
FEW
LITTLE
SOME
MOSTLY
DESCRIPTIVE
TERMS
RANGE OF
PROPORTION
0 - 5%
5 - 10%
10 - 25%
30 - 45%
50 - 100%
LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS
C
TW
MS
GP
RC
AG
Core (Rock)
Thin Wall (Shelby Tube)
Modified Shelby
Geoprobe
Air Rotary Cuttings
Auger Cuttings
SS
SSO
HD
BD
CA
GS
SAMPLER ABBREVIATIONS
CRITERIA FOR DESCRIBING
MOISTURE CONDITION (ASTM D 2488-00)
SIZE RANGE
ABOVE 12 IN.
3 IN. TO 12 IN.
3 IN. TO NO. 4 (4.76 mm)
3 IN. TO 3/4 IN.
3/4 IN. TO NO. 4 (4.76 mm)
NO. 4 (4.76 mm) TO NO. 200 (0.074 mm)
NO. 4 (4.76 mm) TO NO. 10 (2.0 mm)
NO. 10 (2.0 mm) TO NO. 40 (0.42 mm)
NO. 40 (0.42 mm) TO NO. 200 (0.074 mm)
SMALLER THAN NO. 200 (0.074 mm)
0.074 mm TO 0.005 mm
LESS THAN 0.005 mm
SPT Sampler (2 in. OD, 140 lb hammer)
Oversize Split Spoon (2.5 in. OD, 140 lb typ.)
Heavy Duty Split Spoon (3 in. OD, 300/340 lb typ.)
Bulk Drive (4 in. OD, 300/340 lb hammer typ.)
Continous Core (Soil in Hollow-Stem Auger)
Grab Sample from Surface / Testpit
BOULDERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
COARSE GRAVEL
FINE GRAVEL
SAND
COARSE SAND
MEDIUM SAND
FINE SAND
SILT AND CLAY
SILT
CLAY
COMPONENT DEFINITIONS BY GRADATION
COMPONENT
ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TO THE TOUCH
DAMP BUT NO VISIBLE WATER
VISIBLE FREE WATER, USUALLY SOIL IS BELOW
WATER TABLE
DRY
MOIST
WET
WELL-GRADED GRAVEL
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL
SILTY GRAVEL
CLAYEY GRAVEL
WELL-GRADED SAND
POORLY GRADED SAND
SILTY SAND
CLAYEY SAND
LEAN CLAY
SILT
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
FAT CLAY
ELASTIC SILT
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
4
MATERIAL
TYPES
FINE-GRAINED SOILS>50% PASSESNO. 200 SIEVELIQUID LIMIT (LL)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
(PI > 7)
FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR MH
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
PT
GROUP
SYMBOL
If soil contains 15% sand, add"with sand"If soil contains coarse-grained soil from15% to 29%, add "with sand" or "withgravel" for whichever type is prominent,or for 30%, add "sandy" or "gravelly"PLASTICITY CHARTUNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D 2487-00)
(a) Soils consisting of gravel, sand, and silt, either separately or in combination possessing no characteristics of
plasticity, and exhibiting drained behavior.
(b) Soils possessing the characteristics of plasticity, and exhibiting undrained behavior.
(c) Refer to ASTM D 1586-99 for a definition of N. Values shown are based on N values corrected for overburden
pressure (N1). N values may be affected by a number of factors including material size, depth, drilling method,
and borehole disturbance. N values are only an approximate guide for frozen soil or cohesive soil.
(d) Undrained shear strength, su= 1/2 unconfined compression strength, Uc. Note that Torvane measures su and
Pocket Penetrometer measures Uc
< 0.75
CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES
AND GROUP SYMBOLS USING LABORATORY TESTS
(PI < 4)
Con
Comp
Dd
K
MA
NP
OLI
Consolidation
Proctor Compaction (D698/D1557)
Dry Density
Thermal Conductivity
Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis
Non-plastic
Organic Loss
Percent Fines (Silt & Clay)
Soil pH
Photoionization Detector
Modified Proctor
Pocket Penetrometer
Point Load
Sieve Analysis
P200
pH
PID
PM
PP
PTLD
SA
Specific Gravity
Thaw Consolidation/Strain
Torvane
Unconfined Compression
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plastic Limit (PL)
Soil Resistivity
SpG
TC
TV
TX
WC
WP
(a t o r a b o v e "A " lin e )ML
CL
MH
CH
CU 4 AND 1 CC 3
CU < 4 AND/OR 1 > CC > 3
CL-ML (LL < 50)(LL 50)"A " L IN E
(b e lo w "A " lin e )
Excess
ice
Well
bonded
Individual ice crystals
or inclusions
FROZEN SOIL CLASSIFICATION / LEGEND
LIBRARY-ANC(9-20-11).GLB [ANC_ICE_LEGEND] 1/12/12No ice-bonded soil observed
Poorly bonded or friable
Well bonded
ICE BONDING SYMBOLS
Figure
6
3. MODIFY SOIL
DESCRIPTION BY
DESCRIPTION OF
SUBSTANTIAL
ICE STRATA
2. MODIFY SOIL
DESCRIPTION BY
DESCRIPTION OF
FROZEN SOIL
1. DESCRIBE SOIL
INDEPENDENT
OF FROZEN STATE
DEFINITIONS
DESIGNATION
Nf
Nbn
Nbe
Vx
Vc
Vr
Vs
Vu
ICE+soil type
ICE
SUBGROUP
DESIGNATION
N
V
ICE
FROZEN SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D 4083-89)
TYPICAL USCS SOIL CLASSGENERAL SOIL TYPE
% FINER
THAN 0.02
mm BY
WEIGHT
(a) Gravels
Crushed stone
Crushed rock
(b) Sands
GW, GP
SW, SP
(a) Gravels
Crushed stone
Crushed rock
(b) Sands
GW, GP
SW, SP
PFS(4)
[MOA NFS]
S1
[MOA F1]Gravelly soils GW, GP GW-GM, GP-GM,
GW-GC, GP-GC
[MOA F2]
S2
[MOA F2]Sandy soils SW, SP SW-SM, SP-SM,
SW-SC, SP-SC
Gravelly soils GM, GC, GM-GC, GW-GM,
GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC
GW, GP GW-GM, GP-GM,
GW-GC, GP-GC(a) Gravelly soils
(b) Sands
FROST
GROUP(2)
1.5 to 3
3 to 10
3 to 6
3 to 6
6 to 10
10 to 20
6 to 15
F1
[MOA F1]
SM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SC,
SW-SC, SP-SC, SM-SC
(a) Gravelly soils
(b) Sands, except very fine silty sands
(c) Clays, PI>12
GM, GC, GM-GC
SM, SC, SM-SC
CL, CH
(a) Silts
(b) Very fine silty sands
(c) Clays, PI<12
ML, MH, ML-CL
SM, SC, SM-SC
CL, ML-CL
FROST DESIGN SOIL CLASSIFICATION (1)
--
Over 15
--
(d) Varved clays or other fine-
grained banded sediments --CL or CH layered with ML, MH,
ML-CL, SM, SC, or SM-SC
DESCRIPTION
MAJOR GROUP
Segregated
ice not
visible by eye
Segregated
ice visible by
eye (ice less
than 25 mm
thick)
F3
[MOA F3]
F4
[MOA F4]
Over 20
Over 15
--
Ice greater
than 25 mm
thick
DESCRIPTION
Poorly bonded
of friable
Ice without
soil inclusions
Ice with soil
inclusions
Uniformly
distributed ice
Stratified or distincltly
oriented ice formations
Random or irregularly
oriented ice formations
Ice coatings
on particles
CLASSIFY SOIL BY THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
No excess
ice
Candled Ice is ice which has rotted or
otherwise formed into long columnar
crystals, very loosely bonded together.
Clear Ice is transparent and contains only
a moderate number of air bubbles.
Cloudy Ice is translucent, but essentially
sound and non-pervious
Friable denotes a condition in which
material is easily broken up under light to
moderate pressure.
Granular Ice is composed of coarse, more
or less equidimensional, ice crystals weakly
bonded together.
Ice Coatings on particles are discernible
layers of ice found on or below the larger
soil particles in a frozen soil mass. They
are sometimes associated with hoarfrost
crystals, which have grown into voids
produced by the freezing action.
Ice Crystal is a very small individual ice
particle visible in the face of a soil mass.
Crystals may be present alone or in a
combination with other ice formations.
Ice Lenses are lenticular ice formations in
soil occurring essentially parallel to each
other, generally normal to the direction of
heat loss and commonly in repeated layers.
Ice Segregation is the growth of ice as
distinct lenses, layers, veins and masses in
soils, commonly but not always oriented
normal to direction of heat loss.
Massive Ice is a large mass of ice,
typically nearly pure and relatively
homogeneous.
Poorly-bonded signifies that the soil
particles are weakly held together by the
ice and that the frozen soil consequently
has poor resistance to chipping or
breaking.
Porous Ice contains numerous voids,
usually interconnected and usually resulting
from melting at air bubbles or along crystal
interfaces from presence of salt or other
materials in the water, or from the freezing
of saturated snow. Though porous, the
mass retains its structural unity.
Thaw-Stable frozen soils do not, on
thawing, show loss of strength below
normal, long-time thawed values nor
produce detrimental settlement.
Thaw-Unstable frozen soils show on
thawing, significant loss of strength below
normal, long-time thawed values and/or
significant settlement, as a direct result of
the melting of the excess ice in the soil.
Well-Bonded signifies that the soil
particles are strongly held together by the
ice and that the frozen soil possesses
relatively high resistance to chipping or
breaking.
NFS(3)
[MOA NFS]
F2
[MOA F2]
(1) From U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), EM 1110-3-138, "Pavement Criteria for Seasonal Frost Conditions," April 1984
(2) USACE frost groups directly correspond to frost groups listed in Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) design criteria manual (DCM), 2007;
except as noted.
(3) Non-frost susceptible
(4) Possibly frost susceptible, requires lab test for void ratio to determine frost design soil classification. Gravel with void ratio > 0.25 would
be NFS; Gravel with void ratio < 0.25 would be S1; Sands with void ratio > 0.30 would be NFS; Sands with void ratio < 0.30
would be S2 or F2
0 to 1.5
0 to 3
1
2
3 Test Pit w/ excavatorPT
OL
ML
GM
Notes:
1) Test pit excavated to refusal on inferred
bedrock, at 11 feet deep
2) Groundwater observed at 1 foot during
excavation
3) Frozen ground observed at 2 feet during
excavation
3) Sealed 1.25 inch schedule 40 PVC installed to
11 feet
4) Test pit backfilled with excavated material
1.0
2.0
8.0
0.0 - 1.0
Moist, dark brown, PEAT
(PT)
1.0 - 2.0
Wet, brown, ORGANIC SILT
(OL)
2.0 - 8.0
Frozen, brown, SILT, well bonded with
approximately 10-15% visible ice by volume as
individual ice crystals
(ML-Vx)
8.0 - 11.0
Frozen, brown, SILTY GRAVEL, angular gravel
up to 3 inch diameter, some silt, well bonded
(GM)
Borehole completed at 11.0 ft.
GS
GS
GS
1.25 inch
schedule 40
PVC
1 ft
during
excavationTYPEDESCRIPTIONELEV.BORING METHOD10 20 30 40
10 20 30 40
DEPTH
(ft)WL
UNCORRECTED
BLOWS / FT
SALINITY (ppt)
WATER CONTENT (PERCENT)
(inch)BLOWSPER FTWP
REC
ATT
RECORD OF BOREHOLE TP-1
VEGETATION: Tundra
SOIL PROFILE
GRAPHICLOGW
ICE BONDSAMPLES
USCSNUMBERNOTES
TESTS
WATER LEVELS
GRAPHICDEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
PROJECT: Saint Marys Wind Turbines
PROJECT NUMBER: 113-95706
LOCATION: Saint Marys, Alaska
CLIENT: CRW Engineering Group, LLC
DRILLING DATE: 10/26/2011
EQUIPMENT: CAT 330 CL w/ 4' bucket
Figure
7
DATUM: NAD 83
ELEVATION: n/a
COORDS: 62.03892° N 163.24719° W
LOGGED: J. Randazzo
CHECKED: M. Hess
CHECK DATE: 12/21/2011
SHEET 1 of 1
DEPTH SCALE: 1 inch to 2.5 feet
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: City of St. Marys
DRILLER: Max
113-95706 LOGS.GPJ LIBRARY-ANC(7-2-12).GLB [ANC BOREHOLE] MFurrer 9/10/1280
1
2
3 Test Pit w/ excavatorPT
OL
ML
ML
ML
GM
Notes:
1) Groundwater observed at 2 feet during
excavation
2) Frozen ground observed at 2 feet during
excavation
2) Test pit backfilled with excavated material
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
9.0
11.0
0.0 - 1.0
Moist, dark brown, PEAT
(PT)
1.0 - 2.0
Moist to wet, brown, ORGANIC SILT
(OL)
2.0 - 3.0
Frozen, brown, SILT, well bonded with
approximately 25% visible ice by volume as
individual ice crystals
(ML, Vx)
3.0 - 4.0
Frozen, light gray, SILT, trace subrounded
gravel up to 0.75 inch diameter, well bonded
with approximately 20% visible ice by volume as
individual ice crystals
(ML, Vx)
4.0 - 9.0
Frozen, gray, SILT, well bonded
(ML, Nb)
9.0 - 11.0
Frozen, gray, SILTY GRAVEL, angular gravel
up to 3 inch diameter, some silt, well bonded
(GM)
11.0 - 12.0
Gray, BEDROCK, flat, fractured rock, mostly
flat, angular cobble sized clasts, well bonded
Borehole completed at 12.0 ft.
GS
GS
GS
Backfilled
with
excavated
material
2 ft
during
excavationTYPEDESCRIPTIONELEV.BORING METHOD10 20 30 40
10 20 30 40
DEPTH
(ft)WL
UNCORRECTED
BLOWS / FT
SALINITY (ppt)
WATER CONTENT (PERCENT)
(inch)BLOWSPER FTWP
REC
ATT
RECORD OF BOREHOLE TP-2
VEGETATION: Tundra
SOIL PROFILE
GRAPHICLOGW
ICE BONDSAMPLES
USCSNUMBERNOTES
TESTS
WATER LEVELS
GRAPHICDEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
PROJECT: Saint Marys Wind Turbines
PROJECT NUMBER: 113-95706
LOCATION: Saint Marys, Alaska
CLIENT: CRW Engineering Group, LLC
DRILLING DATE: 10/26/2011
EQUIPMENT: CAT 330 CL w/ 4' bucket
Figure
8
DATUM: NAD 83
ELEVATION: n/a
COORDS: 62.03683° N 163.24900° W
LOGGED: J. Randazzo
CHECKED: M. Hess
CHECK DATE: 12/21/2011
SHEET 1 of 1
DEPTH SCALE: 1 inch to 2.5 feet
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: City of St. Marys
DRILLER: Bossa
113-95706 LOGS.GPJ LIBRARY-ANC(7-2-12).GLB [ANC BOREHOLE] MFurrer 9/10/12193
1
2
3 Test Pit w/ excavatorPT
OL
GP-GM
Notes:
1) Groundwater not encountered during excavation
2) Frozen ground not encountered during
excavation
3) Test pit backfilled with excavated material
0.5
1.0
6.0
9.0
0.0 - 0.5
Dry to moist, brown, PEAT
(PT)
0.5 - 1.0
Brown, ORGANIC SILT, fibrous roots
(OL)
1.0 - 6.0
Dry to moist, brown, poorly graded GRAVEL
with silt and sand, angular gravel up to 3 inch
diameter, few silt
(GP-GM)
6.0 - 9.0
Gray, BEDROCK, fractured rock, mostly flat,
angular cobble sized clasts
9.0 - 12.0
Gray to white, BEDROCK, flat plates up to 48
inch diameter
Borehole completed at 12.0 ft.
GS
GS
GS
Backfilled
with
excavated
materialTYPEDESCRIPTIONELEV.BORING METHOD10 20 30 40
10 20 30 40
DEPTH
(ft)WL
UNCORRECTED
BLOWS / FT
SALINITY (ppt)
WATER CONTENT (PERCENT)
(inch)BLOWSPER FTWP
REC
ATT
RECORD OF BOREHOLE TP-3
VEGETATION: Tundra
SOIL PROFILE
GRAPHICLOGW
ICE BONDSAMPLES
USCSNUMBERNOTES
TESTS
WATER LEVELS
GRAPHICDEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
PROJECT: Saint Marys Wind Turbines
PROJECT NUMBER: 113-95706
LOCATION: Saint Marys, Alaska
CLIENT: CRW Engineering Group, LLC
DRILLING DATE: 10/27/2011
EQUIPMENT: CAT 330 CL w/ 4' bucket
Figure
9
DATUM: NAD 83
ELEVATION: n/a
COORDS: 62.03464° N 163.25083° W
LOGGED: J. Randazzo
CHECKED: M. Hess
CHECK DATE: 12/21/2011
SHEET 1 of 1
DEPTH SCALE: 1 inch to 2.5 feet
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: City of St. Marys
DRILLER: Max
113-95706 LOGS.GPJ LIBRARY-ANC(7-2-12).GLB [ANC BOREHOLE] MFurrer 9/10/12
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TP-1 1 3.0 3.5 100 GS 80 ML
TP-1 2 9.5 10.0 100 GS 11 ML
TP-1 3 10.0 10.5 100 GS Rock
TP-2 1 2.0 2.5 100 GS 193 ML
TP-2 2 3.0 3.5 100 GS 46 ML
TP-2 3 10.0 10.5 100 GS 23 GM
TP-3 1 1.5 2.0 100 GS 7 GP-GM
TP-3 2 10.0 10.5 100 GS Rock
TP-3 3 11.0 11.5 100 GS RockTOPBOTTOMDEPTH (ft)SAMPLE LOCATIONSAMPLING DATA CLASSIFICATION AND INDEX TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1: SAMPLE SUMMARY
Sheet 1 of 1
11/28/2011S. WilsonReviewed By:
QA/QC By:11/28/2011J. Randazzo Date:
Date:SAMPLE NUMBERProject:
Location:
Client:Project No.:
Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America
Golder Associates Inc.
Saint Marys, Alaska
Saint Marys Wind Turbines
CRW Engineering Group, LLC 113-95706
2121 Abbott Road, Suite 100, Anchorage, AK
Tel: (907) 344-6001 Fax: (907) 344-6011 www.golder.com113-95706 LOGS.GPJ LIBRARY-ANC(7-2-12).GLB [ANC_SAMPLE_SUMMARY] MFurrer 9/10/12PLASTIC LIMIT(PL) (%)LIQUID LIMIT(LL) (%)PLASTICITY INDEX(PI) (%)FINES(SILT & CLAY)GRAVELSANDGRADATION (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%)DESCRIPTION(USCS)SALINITY (ppt)[ (d) is directly meas.]SAMPLE TYPERECOVERY (%)BLOWS PER FOOTNATURAL MOISTURECONTENT (%)TESTS /OTHER TESTS
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
2601 Meacham Boulevard
Fort Worth, TX 76137
Aeronautical Study No.
2012-WTW-5187-OE
Prior Study No.
2011-WTW-11803-OE
Page 1 of 8
Issued Date: 09/04/2012
Matt Metcalf
AVEC
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure:Wind Turbine Wind Turbine 4
Location:Pitkas Point, AK
Latitude:62-02-09.67N NAD 83
Longitude:163-15-02.69W
Heights:585 feet site elevation (SE)
250 feet above ground level (AGL)
835 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular
70/7460-1 K Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, white paint/synchronized red lights - Chapters
4,12&13(Turbines).
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be completed and returned to
this office any time the project is abandoned or:
_____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part I)
__X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part II)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
This determination expires on 03/04/2014 unless:
(a)the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b)extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
Page 2 of 8
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or
before October 04, 2012. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis
upon which it is made and be submitted in triplicate to the Manager, Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group, 800 Independence
Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on October 14, 2012 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (800) 478-3576 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Robert van Haastert, at (907) 271-5863. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2012-WTW-5187-OE.
Page 3 of 8
Signature Control No: 166981165-172541923 ( DNH -WT )
Sheri Edgett-Baron
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 4 of 8
Additional information for ASN 2012-WTW-5187-OE
AERONAUTICAL STUDY NO. 2012-WTW-5187-OE
Abbreviations
AGL - above ground level MSL - mean sea level RWY - runway
IFR - instrument flight rules VFR - visual flight rules nm - nautical mile
Part 77 - Title 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace
1. LOCATION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed 250 AGL/835 MSL wind turbine would be located approximately 10,994 feet southeast of the
RWY 35 threshold at St. Mary's Airport (KSM), AK. KSM elevation: 312 MSL. It would be located southeast
of Andreafsky Mountain on the top of the cliffs overlooking Pitkas Point.
This proposal was previously studied as a 190 AGL wind turbine, aeronautical study number 2011-
WTW-11803-OE. At 190 AGL, this proposal received a favorable FAA Determination. This new proposal is
for a 60 foot increase in wind turbine height.
2. OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS EXCEEDED
Section 77.17(a)(2) -- The transitional surface area designated to protect Category C and Category D aircraft
traffic patterns and VFR aircraft transitioning to/from the enroute phase of flight. This proposed structure
would exceed these transitional surfaces at KSM by 50 feet.
Section 77.17(a)(3) -- A structure that causes less than the required obstacle clearance within a terminal obstacle
clearance area, including an initial approach segment, a departure area, and a circling approach area resulting
in increases to an IFR terminal minimum altitude. This proposed structure will penetrate the 40:1 departure
surface in the initial climb area (ICA) by 28 feet.
Section 77.19(b) -- A surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a
slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. This proposed structure would exceed the KSM conical
surface by 324 feet.
3. EFFECT ON AERONAUTICAL OPERATIONS
a. The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under VFR follows:
The transitional surface area designated to protect Category C and Category D aircraft traffic patterns and
VFR aircraft transitioning to/from the enroute phase of flight. This proposed structure would exceed these
transitional surfaces at KSM by 50 feet.
The KSM Airport Master Record can be viewed at http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=KSM. It
states that there are eight (8) single engine aircraft based at KSM. For the 12 months ending 31 August 2005
(latest information) there were no reported operations.
b. The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under IFR follows: None.
The proposed structure would not increase any currently published climb gradient. The current Take-off
Minimums and (Obstacle) Departure procedures for KSM can be viewed/downloaded at http://aeronav.faa.gov/
d-tpp/1207/AKTO.PDF. They are extracted below
ST. MARYS (KSM)
AMDT 1 87043 (FAA)
Page 5 of 8
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: RWYs 6, 17, 24, 200-1.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: RWYs 6, 17, 24, 35, climb straight ahead to 1000, continue climb on course.
c. The impact on all planned public-use airports and aeronautical facilities follow: None.
d. The cumulative impact resulting from the proposed construction or alteration of a structure when combined
with the impact of other existing or proposed structures follows: None.
4. CIRCULATION AND COMMENTS RECEIVED
The proposal was circularized for public comment on 23 July 2012 and one public comment was received from
the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
The State of Alaska DOT&PF would like to stress that the proposed increase in height is in an area that is
transited by aircraft approaching St. Mary's Airport. Due to the proximity to the KSM and the height of the
tower the State of Alaska DOT&PF request that, if the structure is increased in height, it be lit and/or the blades
are painted a contrasting color to make them visible to low-flying aircraft.
The FAA concurs that obstruction marking and lighting would be required, however, the wind turbine marking
and lighting national standard does not include painted (aviation red) wind turbine blades. Painting wind
turbine blades were evaluated and not deemed effective. Additionally, adding paint would impact the balance
of the blades and this imbalance could cause the wind turbine blade to nick the wind turbine base and cause
destruction. The national standard for marking and lighting wind turbines includes painting the structure white
and during the hours of darkness, synchronized flashing red obstruction lights.
5. DETERMINATION - NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION
It is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and
efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft.
6. BASIS FOR DECISION
The proposed wind turbine structure would exceed the KSM Category C and Category D aircraft traffic patterns
and VFR aircraft transitional surfaces by 50 feet. Additionally, the conical surface is exceeded by 324 feet
and the 40:1 departure surface in the ICA would be exceed by 28 feet. However, the terrain also penetrates the
conical surface by 74 feet. There are no IFR effects and there were no public objections to the proposal. The
incorporation of obstruction marking and lighting will provide additional pilot conspicuity to address the VFR
concerns and for pilots flying near this area.
7. CONDITIONS
This structure shall be marked and lighted with white paint and red lights as outlined in chapters 4, 12, and 13
(Turbines) of Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1K. The synchronization shall match with the other identified
wind turbines in this project requiring synchronized red obstruction lights. The advisory circular is available
online at https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/content/AC70_7460_1K.pdf. It is also free of charge, from the
Department of Transportation, Subsequent Distribution Office, SVC-121-23 Ardmore East Business Center,
3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785 (301-322-4961; fax 301-386-5394)
Within five days after the structure reaches its greatest height, proponent is required to file a FAA form 7460-2,
Actual Construction notification, at the OE/AAA website (http://oeaaa.faa.gov). This Actual Construction
notification will be the source document detailing the site location, site elevation, structure height, and date
structure was built for the FAA to map the structure on aeronautical charts and update the national obstruction
database.
Page 6 of 8
-x-
Page 7 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2012-WTW-5187-OE
Page 8 of 8
Sectional Map for ASN 2012-WTW-5187-OE
St. Mary’s/Pitkas Point
Wind Energy Project
Introduction
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is proposing to install one 900 kW wind turbine in St.
Mary’s to the serve the communities of St. Mary’s and Pitkas Point. As part of the project AVEC will also
upgrade the existing electrical distribution line between St. Mary’s and the wind turbine site.
St. Mary's is located on the north bank of the Andreafsky River, 5 miles from its confluence with the
Yukon River. It lies 450 air miles west‐northwest of Anchorage. The City of St. Mary's encompasses the
Yup'ik villages of St. Mary's and Andreafsky. The community lies at approximately 62.053060° North
Latitude and ‐163.165830° West Longitude. (Sec. 26, T023N, R076W, Seward Meridian. St. Mary’s has a
population of 554 (2011 DCCED Commissioner Certified Estimate).
Pitkas Point is located near the junction of the Yukon and Andreafsky Rivers, 5 road miles northwest of
St. Mary's on the Yukon‐Kuskokwim Delta. It lies 3 miles by road from the St. Mary's airport. The
community lies at approximately 62.032780° North Latitude and ‐163.287780° West Longitude. (Sec. 06,
T022N, R076W, Seward Meridian). Pitkas Point has a population of 93 (2011 Department of Labor
Estimate).
Purpose and Need
St. Mary’s, which also supplies electricity to Pitkas Point, uses diesel fuel for electrical power generation,
heating oil for boiler and home heating, thermal heat recovered from the power plant for heating
community facilities, and diesel and gasoline for transportation needs. The proposed project would add
one 900 kW wind turbine to supplement the existing the electrical power system. The one turbine is
expected to produce approximately 26 percent of the electricity consumed by the villages. This will
result in:
A reduction in diesel fuel use, up to 65,000‐gallons per year. This equates a savings of about
$350,000 during its first year of operation (expected to be 2014), with savings increasing each
year.
A reduction in operation and maintenance costs.
Stabilized energy costs for both villages.
A reduction in fossil fuel emissions which results in improved air quality and decreased
contribution to global climate change.
In addition, excess energy from the wind turbines will be used to heat important community facilities,
decreasing the cost to operate those facilities and further reducing the consumption of heating oil in the
communities. It is also a step forward in achieving state and federal renewable energy goals.
AVEC ‐ St. Mary’s/Pitkas Point Wind Energy Project
Page 2
Letters of support have been received from the City of St. Mary’s, the Tribal Council for the Yupiit of
Andreafski, the Nerklikmute Native Corporation, and the Pitka’s Point Village Council.
Project Description
The site was selected based wind resource studies, its central location between communities
(approximately 2.5 miles southwest of St. Mary’s and 1 mile east of Pitkas Point), its proximity to the
existing power line, ease of access, and suitable foundation conditions. Project figures are attached.
Installation of a 900 kW wind turbine will initially serve the already intertied communities of St. Mary’s
and Pitkas Point and at some future date the communities of Pilot Station and Mountain Village. The
work will include the following primary components:
Gravel access road. Approximately 1,275 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 4 feet thick. The road will
be constructed as an overlay section on the existing grade and consist of gravel from a local
borrow pit. Total fill quantity: 7,200 cubic yards, total surface area: 1.4 acres.
Gravel pad for wind turbine. 150 feet by 250 feet, and 4 feet thick. Total fill quantity: 6,100
cubic yards, total surface area: 1.0 acres.
Wind turbine foundation (buried reinforced concrete foundation on bedrock). Required
excavation: 610 cubic yards. Surface area disturbed: 0.06 acres. (Note: This area is under and a
part of the gravel pad area.)
900 kW wind turbine. 50 meter hub height and 52 meter rotor diameter.
New 3‐phase overhead power line. 1,650 feet long from the proposed wind turbine to the
existing overhead power line between St Mary’s and the St. Mary’s airport.
Upgrade of the existing 2‐phase power line between St. Mary’s and the new wind turbine line.
This task will involve changing the framing on the existing power poles and installing a fourth
conductor. The existing poles will be reused. The total length of the upgrade is approximately
2.6 miles.
Secondary Load Controls. Upgrades to the St Mary’s power plant or an adjacent building.
AVEC ‐ St. Mary’s/Pitkas Point Wind Energy Project
Page 3
Environmental
Considerations
The proposed site is
approximately 65 to 80
miles inland from the coast
line of Norton Sound. It is
on a ridge line on the north
bank of the Andreafsky
River at its confluence with
the Yukon River. The
horizontal distance from
the site to the river is
approximately 1,200 feet,
The site is approximately
560 feet above the river at an elevation of 585 feet.
The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory indicates that the proposed site consists of Freshwater
Emergent wetlands (Figure attached).
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Field Office, Section 7 Consultation
Guide, there are no endangered or listed species, or federally designated critical habitat listed
near St. Mary’s, Pitkas Point, or Mountain Village.
A field investigation and subsurface exploration was conducted in October 2011. Tundra vegetation
covers the site with some taller brush along drainage areas, primary in the north end of site. The general
subsurface conditions at site consist of a thin surficial organic mat one to two feet thick, overlying wind‐
blown silt to a contact with shallow weathered bedrock. The highly fractured bedrock is weathered to
soil‐like fabric and has been logged as dense gravel with cobble size clasts with some silt. Surface water
was not noted during the geotechnical investigation. Three test pits were excavated.
Test pit 1 is located nearest to the road and was excavated to 11 feet bgs. The upper two feet
consisted of soft, wet peat and organic silt. Ground water was observed at one foot deep in the
test pit near the permafrost contact. Frozen ice‐rich silt was observed to eight feet deep. Frozen
gravelly material with silt was observed between 8 and 11 feet deep and is interpreted as highly
fractured and weathered bedrock.
Test pit 2 was excavated to 12 feet bgs. An unfrozen organic layer was observed in the upper
two feet, consisting of peat and organic silt. Frozen ice‐rich silt was observed to 9 feet bgs. Silty
gravel was observed between 9 and 11 feet, and is interpreted as highly fractured, weathered
bedrock.
Test pit 3 was excavated to a depth of 12 feet bgs. . An unfrozen organic layer consisting of peat
and organic silt was observed to 1 foot bgs, underlain by medium dense gravel sized material,
interpreted as highly fractured and weathered bedrock. Less fractured, weathered bedrock was
observed at 6 feet to 11 feet bgs, becoming harder between 11 and 12 feet bgs.
Proposed site
AVEC ‐ St. Mary’s/Pitkas Point Wind Energy Project
Page 4
Representative site conditions
between Airport Road and wind
turbine site.
AVEC ‐ St. Mary’s/Pitkas Point Wind Energy Project
Page 5
Representative view of slope
down to Andreafsky River
Representative conditions
near wind turbine site.
AVEC ‐ St. Mary’s/Pitkas Point Wind Energy Project
Page 6
Proposed Mitigation Statement
This statement concludes that there is not a practicable alternative to the construction in wetlands for
the proposed project designated as “St. Mary’s/Pitkas Point Wind Energy Project,” and the proposed
action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands.
Avoidance
Local terrain is characterized by gently sloping hills covered with tundra, moss, grass, scattered patches
of dense willow brush and occasional black spruce. Wetlands, ponds, and streams dominate the region.
Suitable sites for wind turbine installation are based on specific site selection criteria including exposure
to the prevailing wind resource, terrain features and orientation, compatibility with land uses, proximity
to electrical infrastructure, property boundaries, aviation and communication factors, and
environmental and community factors. Based on these criteria, alternatives sites suitable for wind
generation are extremely limited. Wind data was collected for more than a year to verify that sites are
suitable for development as a wind resource. Two other sites were evaluated and determined to be
suitable; however, both also impacted similar terrain and either freshwater emergent or freshwater
forested shrub wetlands.
Minimization of Unavoidable Impacts
Rather than using three smaller turbines, as originally designed, the project will use a single 50
meter hub height and 52 meter rotor diameter turbine. This minimizes the overall project
footprint.
Primary access is from an existing road and site development only requires a 1,275 foot long
driveway/access to the turbine.
The authorized limits of construction in wetlands will be clearly delineated with flagging, stakes,
construction fencing, and/or silt fencing prior to the initiation of any work in or adjacent to
wetlands. All equipment operators and laborers will be advised that there must be no
disturbance to areas beyond the delineated wetland boundaries.
The contractor will design, implement, and maintain appropriate and effective erosion,
sediment, and storm water controls, before, during and after construction.
All fills and disturbed areas subject to potential erosion will be permanently stabilized by
vegetation or other suitable means to prevent erosion and the introduction of sediments and/or
contaminants into surrounding wetlands beyond the authorized fill footprint.
No vehicles or equipment will be fueled or serviced in wetland or other aquatic areas within or
adjacent to the project footprint. Fueling and service vehicles shall be equipped adequate
materials such as sorbent pads, booms, etc. to immediately contain and commence cleanup of
spilled fuels and other petroleum products.
The new 1,650 foot long overhead power line from the wind turbine to the existing power line
will have bird diverters.
The proposed design uses tubular supports (vs. lattice) and does not use guy wires. Both of
these features will minimize the potential for bird strikes.
AVEC ‐ St. Mary’s/Pitkas Point Wind Energy Project
Page 7
Red, or dual red and white strobe, strobe‐like, or flashing lights, not steady burning lights will be
used to meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for visibility lighting of wind
turbine.
Compensation for Unavoidable Impacts
Based upon the above facts and considerations, at this time it is determined that there is no practicable
alternative to the proposed construction in and adjacent to wetlands. Wetlands dominate the area.
Impacted wetlands represent only a small fraction of the total wetland resources in the area and are not
unique. Given that the project is a re‐newable energy resource, and will reduce dependence on diesel
fuel, associated bulk tank infrastructure, and potential adverse environmental impacts from spills,
additional compensatory mitigation is not proposed.
St. Mary's Wind
Turbine Site
Aug 27, 2012
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not
responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All
wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on
the Wetlands Mapper web site.
User Remarks: